D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision has been filed by the tenant in chief. The defendant no. 1 challenged the decree for eviction from the suit accommodation on the ground of alleged sub-letting to the defendant No. 2. One godown was let out to the firm-defendant no. 1 on monthly rent of Rs. 30/- and rent note was executed on 1. 9. 1967. The plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 filed suit for eviction against the revisionist and the defendant no. 2 on the ground of sub-letting the disputed godown by the defendant No. 1 to the defendant No. 2. Eviction was also sought on the grounds of personal bonafide deed of the landlord to use the accommodation for his business purposes. On the ground of default in payment of rent also eviction was sought.

( 2 ) THE suit was resisted by the revisionist only. The defendant No. 2 who is respondent No. 2 in this revision did not file any written statement nor appeared in the witness box.

( 3 ) THE stand of the defendant No. 1 was that there was no sub-letting and no default in payment of rent and that the godown was not needed for personal requirement of the landlord.

( 4 ) THE Trial Court found that the tenant did not commit default in payment of rent and that the landlord did not require the godown for his personal use. The Trial Court further found that the plea of sub-letting was not proved but it was proved that the defendant No. 1 had illegally assigned and transferred his interest to the defendant No. 2 and as such he was liable to be evicted.

( 5 ) AN Appeal was preferred in which the Appellate Court disagreed with the findings of the Trial Court partly on the question of sub-letting. It was found that the sub-letting was proved. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was confirmed. It is, therefore, this revision.

( 6 ) TWO points were raised by Shri S. M. Shah, learned Counsel for the revisionists.

( 7 ) THE first contention was that the suit was incompetent in asmuch as it could not be filed in the name of the firm defendant No. 1. In reply to this contention, Shri J. R. Nanavati, appearing for the landlord-respondent contended that this plea was neither raised in the Trial Court nor in the Appellate Court. Hence, it cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in this revision. It is true that the plea was not raised in the two courts below but the plea goes to the root of the maintainability of the suit. Hence, I heard learned Counsel for the parties on this plea. According to learned Counsel for the revisionist the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to these proceedings and as such in view of Order 31 CPC the suit could not be filed in the name of the firm. He made reference to Rule 2 (a) framed under the Bombay Rent Act. Rule 2 (a) provides for definition of code which means Code of Civil Procedure.

( 8 ) RULE 8 provides for procedure for other suits. It says that in suits and proceedings other than those referred to in Rules 5 and 7 the Court of Small Causes, Bombay shall as far as may be and with the necessary modifications follow the procedure prescribed for a court of first instance by the Code. A reference was also made to Sec. 31 of the Bombay rent Act which provides that the Courts specified in Secs. 28 and 29 shall follow the prescribed procedure in trying and hearing suits, proceedings, applications and appeals and in executing orders made by them.

( 9 ) ON the basis of this provision it was argued by learned Counsel for the revisionist that the suit could not be filed in the name of the firm.

( 10 ) LEARNED Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 however, pointed out that since the tenancy was created in the name of the firm-defendant No. 1, the suit was competent. In several cases it has been held by various High Courts that if there is registered partnership firm the suit can be filed by such firm or against such firm in the name of the firm and it is not necessary to implead one or more partners of the said firm. Firm name is mere c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document