Sheema Ali Khan, J.

1. The plaintiffs-petitioners are the landlords who had filed a suit for eviction from a shop situated in a building known as "Vishwash (Amawan House)" situated in North Krishnapuri in the town of Patna.

2. The suit for eviction has been filed on the ground of personal necessity under Section 11(1)(C) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and hence the suit is being filed under Section 14 of the Act.

3. By the impugned order dated 20-1-2009 the Munsif, III, Patna has allowed the opposite party No. 4 to be added as party in place of his mother Smt. Rajyashree Sinha who died during the pendency of the suit along with the partners of M/s. Priti Garments having the business in the name and style of M/s. "Bachpan His and Hers" who have been impleaded as defendants 2 to 4.

4. The eviction suit was filed in the year 2001. It would be important to state a few facts with respect to title eviction suit No. 34 of 2001. The defendants appeared in this suit and took permission under Section 14(4) of the Act for grant of leave to contest. The leave was granted and thereafter the defendant adopted the grounds taken in the special leave application as her written statement. The rest of the defendants who are partners of the said firm described above did not appear, nor did they choose to contest the same and hence the suit proceeded ex-parte against them. The evidence of the plaintiffs-petitioners commenced by examination of P. W. 1 on 19-11-2004 and the plaintiffs evidence concluded on 17-4-2007. The evidence on behalf of the defendants began on 18-5-2007. 13 witnesses were examined. The last witness was examined on behalf of the defendants on 3-6-2008. The defendant No. 4 unfortunately died on 19-6-2008 and she could not examine herself as a witness.

5. On 20-10-2008 it was brought to the notice of the Court that defendant No. 4 has died and a petition was filed on 15-9-2008 in pursuance of direction given by the court below on 29-8-2008. The Court while considering whether the substitution petition should be allowed by the plaintiffs held that since the tenancy is in favour of partnership firm, the provisions of Order XXX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) will apply in case of death of the partnership firm. The Munsif also held that the legal heirs of the deceased partner may approach the Court to be added as partner and finally ordered that the plaintiffs are directed to file any document to show that the defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm and defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are its partners and after the petition was filed the order dated 20-10-2008 was passed holding therein that there is a prima facie case that the defendant No. 4 was the partner of defendant No. 1 and as such it would not be necessary to join the legal representatives of the deceased as party to the suit.

6. On 17-11-2008 one Amitesh Anand filed a petition stating that he is the legal heir of defendant No. 4 and that he should be impleaded as party in the eviction suit. An objection was, raised on behalf of the plaintiffs who stated that Amitesh Anand is not a necessary party in the suit as he is not a partner in the firm and no substitution is necessary under Order XXX Rule 4(2)(a) of the Code. By this impugned order the Court allowed Amitesh Anand to be added as party in the interest of justice for proper adjudication of the case. This order has been challenged in this Court.

7. The plaintiffs-petitioners have submitted that the son of the defendant No. 4 is neither a partner in the firm nor does he have any interest in the firm and as such he is not required to be substituted in place of defendant No. 4. It is further submitted that the Court below has not appreciated the provisions of Order XXX Rule 4(2) (a) of the Code while passing the order. Order XXX Rule 4 reads as follows:

4. Right of suit on death of partner.- (1) Notwithstan