JUDGMENT -A.D. MANE, J.:---The petitioner filed an application before the Rent Controller under Clause 13 (3)(ii), (vi) of C.P. Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 against the respondents. That application was granted on 5-2-1986. The same was also confirmed in Appeal on 10-3-1987. The respondents however, filed their review appeal on 23-3-1987 inter alia seeking review of the order dated 10-3-1987. One of the grounds raised for review is that one of the partners of the respondent firm who died during the pendency of the application has not been represented by his legal representatives, and therefore, the order becomes a nullity. That contention was accepted and the order in appeal was reviewed by order dated 25-5-1987 by which the matter stood remanded to the Rent Controller so as to enable the petitioner to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased partner Jadaben on record and to decide the application afresh according to law. That order of review application is challenged in this writ petition.

2. It is not disputed that the respondent No. 1 is a partnership firm and it consisted of four partners. According to the petitioner, the firm is a tenant. As held by the Supreme Court in (Chhotelal Pyarelal Partnership Firm and others v. Shikharchand)1, 1984 Mh. L.J. 839, in proceedings for grant of permission under Clause 13(3) (ii) of the C.P. Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, where partnership is a tenant, it is necessary to make the partners as parties and it is not sufficient merely to make a partnership firm as a party. The question, however, arises whether legal representatives of deceased partner who was a party to the proceeding is a necessary party or not.

3. Mrs. Sirpurkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that the partnership is at will and partnership does not dissolve on the death of partner. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the estate of the deceased partner can be said to have been discharged and his heirs or legal representatives have no right to succeed to any interest in the estate of the partnership. Therefore, the representatives of deceased partner who was not party to the suit was not a necessary party. On the other hand, Shri Parchure, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that as a general rule where partnership is a tenant all partners should be the parties to the proceedings, death of the partner will not be an exception. His heirs or representatives would be the necessary parties. It has further been contended that there cannot be any dispute that statutory tenancy in respect of the commercial premises is heritable and the heirs of statutory tenants are entitled to the same protection against eviction as accorded to the tenant. In this context, reliance has been placed on a decision in the case of (Gain Devi v. Jeevan Kumar)2, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 796. The learned Counsel further urged that the partnership agreement does not provide for discharge of the estate of deceased partner on his death. Therefore, the impugned order requires no interference, as the same is perfectly legal.

4. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chhotelal Pyarelal v. Shikharchand (cited supra) lays down a principle that in proceedings for a grant of permission under Clause 13(3) of the Act where partnership is a tenant, it is necessary to make the partners as parties and it is not sufficient merely to make the partnership firm as a party. That is so because under Rent Control Act statutory tenancy in respect of commercial premises is heritable. It is an admitted position that one of the partners viz. Jadaben died during the pendency of the rent control proceedings. It may be stated that the learned Counsel for the respondent has produced a copy of Agreement of Partnership and it could be seen from the terms of the agreement of partnership that the partnership is at will with a proviso that on the death of one of the partners, the partnership

Click Here to Read the rest of this document