A partner in a partnership firm can be considered a lessor and maintain eviction proceedings against lessees under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The plaintiff in an eviction suit has filed the present appeal against the dismissal of the said suit on contest.

2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the learned Trial Judge proceeded on an erroneous premise in holding that the plaintiff has failed to proof that the he is the lessor of the suit property in respect of the defendants and also that the suit was bad for non-joinder of one Sanat Kumar Samanta, who used to take rent from the defendants.

3. Learned senior counsel argues that the appellant has proved that he was a co-owner in respect of the suit property along with one Laxmi Narayan Samanta by virtue of a registered deed of sale dated March 12, 1963, which was marked as Exhibit-1 in the suit.

4. Thereafter, by virtue of a final decree passed in a partition suit, bearing Title Suit No.164 of 2008, on the basis of a Solenama, the plaintiff became the exclusive owner of the suit premises which had been let out to the respondents. The owner, having paramount title, is entitled to get eviction against an occupant/lessee, it is argued.

5. Learned senior counsel cites Dadan Bai wd/o Bhagchand Sindhi v. Arjundas, reported at (1995) 3 SCC 412, for the proposition that a lessor whose title cannot be disputed by the lessee is an owner, at whose instance eviction proceedings are maintainable.

6. Learned senior counsel next cites Vashu Deo v. Balkishan, reported at (2002) 2 SCC 50, for the proposition that a paramount title holder is entitled to get an eviction decree against a sub-tenant.

7. Learned senior counsel takes the court through the agreement of lease granted in favour defendants/respondents. From the lease deed dated July 16, 1980, it is seen that although Vivekananda Oil Mill, a partnership firm, apparently let out the property to the defendants, in the said deed itself, the partners of the firm were included within the definition of “lessor”. Hence, the plaintiff, as one of the partners, could very well maintain the eviction suit as a lessor.

8. Learned senior counsel points out that Sanat Kumar Samanta was appointed by the said lease deed as the agent of the lessor and, as such, is not a necessary party to the suit at all.

9. The appellant contends that in view of the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 having been proved to be served on the defendants/respondents, an eviction decree ought to have been granted in favour of the plaintiff/appellant.

10. It is further submitted by learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that by virtue of the Solenama decree passed in the previous partition suit, the appellant became the exclusive owner of the L.R. Plot No.996, where the leased property is situated.

11. It is submitted that the mention of L.R. Plot No.995 (over and above L.R. Plot No. 996) in the plaint schedule is a superfluity and ought to be disregarded, since admittedly the lease was granted only in respect of L.R. Plot No.996.

12. Learned senior counsel appearing for the defendants/respondents controverts the contentions of the appellant and argues that the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 contemplates only a lessor to have the right to file an eviction suit against the lessee. It is submitted that the present case is not one of sub-tenancy, since the plaintiff has categorically stated in the plaint that he had granted the lease, which is belied by the lease agreement itself, which indicates that Vivekananda Oil Mill, a partnership firm, was the lessor and not the plaintiff. The concept of paramount title is not applicable here, since this is not a case of eviction of a sub-tenant but of a direct lessee.

13. Learned senior counsel for the respondents argues that the non-joinder of Sanat Kumar Samanta, the person who was empowered to take rent in the lease deed, was a necessary party to the suit. Thus, the suit was bad for non-joinder of such necessary party as well.

14. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent