A partnership firm, as an association of individuals, satisfies the definition of 'person' under the relevant Acts, allowing a rent control petition to be filed against the firm alone.

The question whether a rent control petition is maintainable against a partnership firm without individual partners in the array of parties is the one that has come up for consideration in this case.

2. Eviction Petition was filed under Section 11 (3) of the erala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 against M/s. Kaliappa Chettiar Sons, stated to be a registered partnership firm. Objection was filed by the Managing Partner, representing the firm, stating that the petition framed is not maintainable since there is no provision of law under which a rent control petition can be filed against a partnership firm without all its parties in the array of parties. We will first examine the above mentioned legal question.

3. The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter called the 'Act' is intended to regulate the leasing of buildings and to control the rent of such buildings in the State of Kerala. Section 11 of the Act deals with grounds for eviction of the tenant. The word 'tenant' has been defined under Section 2(6) of the Act to mean any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building and includes the heir or heirs of a deceased tenant, and a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, etc. The definition of 'tenant' is an inclusive definition comprehending not only such things as they signify according to their natural import, but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. In other words, the definition of 'tenant' bears both its extended statutory meaning and its ordinary, popular and natural meaning. The Legislature has used the expression 'any person by whom or on whose account' rent is payable.

The word 'any' has to be understood as indefinitely to an appreciable extent. In order to decide whether in a particular instance, the word 'person' includes an artificial person or a Corporation or a company, regard must be had to the setting in which the word 'person' is placed, the circumstances in which it is used, and the context in which it stands. The use of the words 'any' and 'person' are to be understood in that context. The Act does not define the word 'person'. But the word 'person' has been defined under Section 2(26) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125, which says that 'person' shall include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. It is true under the law of Partnership, a firm has no legal existence, apart from its persons. It is merely a compendious entity described as partners. The word 'person' shall include an association or body of individuals. Partners, who are manifestly a body of individuals, would fall within the definition of 'person' contained in Section 1(26) of the Interpretation and General Causes Act, 1125. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that since a partnership firm is an association or body of individuals, it will satisfy the definition of 'person' under Section 2(6) of the Act read with Section 2(26) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125.

4. The question whether an application for eviction against a firm is maintainable under clause 13(3), (vi) and (vii) of the CP and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the decision in M/s. Chhotelal Pyarelal v. Shikarchand, AIR 1984 SC 1570. It was contended that since C.P.C. does not apply to proceedings under the Rent Control Order, no application for eviction can be maintained against a firm in the firm name. It was argued that the firm is merely a compendious name for the partners constituting it and it is only by virtue of the provisions of Order 30 of the C.P.C. that a firm can sue and be sued in its own name without the partners being impleaded eo nomize. This argument in principle was accepted by the Surpeme Court. The Court, however, held that eviction petition was not liable to be reje