A managing partner of a tenant firm can represent the firm in eviction proceedings without the necessity to implead all partners, as the landlord-tenant relationship is adequately established through the managing partner's actions.

ORDER :

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

These two revision petitions are directed against the very same order. The only distinguishing feature is that one of them—R.C.R. No. 148 of 2025—has been filed by a person who was not a party to the original rent control proceedings. The maintainability of a revision petition filed by such a non-party is, therefore, also an issue for consideration. Both revisions challenge the concurrent findings of eviction recorded under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rent Control Act”). The authorities below have concurrently found that the need pleaded in the landlord’s eviction petition is genuine and bona fide.

2. Lengthy arguments have been raised at the bar on the side of the tenant, mainly focusing on the point that non-impleadment of partners of the tenant-firm is fatal to the petition for eviction. It was also argued that the landlord was originally a firm, and without a surrender to the landlord by the then-tenant, the landlord cannot institute a rent control petition. The issues of the case are discernible from the facts themselves.

3. The tenanted premises originally belonged to M/s. Maruthi Enterprises in 1991, while executing the initial lease agreement. The initial lease agreement was executed between the managing partners of the landlord and the tenant firm. Subsequently, the lease was renewed, and, ultimately, the latest lease deed was executed by the co-owners of the premises in favour of the managing partner of the tenant firm, Mr. Joseph K. Thomas. There is no dispute regarding these facts. The question as to whether there was a surrender of the previous tenancy does not assume much significance, for the tenant cannot dispute its own deed, whereby it has expressly acknowledged the present landlord. In the limited context of the Rent Control Act, the Rent Controller is only required to examine whether a landlord– tenant relationship exists. Once the tenant has admitted the present relationship with the landlord, the Rent Control Court cannot go beyond that admission to enquire into whether there was any dissolution or alteration of the earlier partnership. The tenant is estopped from raising any further contention in regard to such a relationship when bound by the written lease deed recognising the landlord’s status.

4. The second question is in regard to non-impleadment of other partners of the tenant firm. Admittedly, Mr. Joseph K. Thomas entered into an agreement on behalf of the partnership firm, namely, M/s Hotel Amritha. The landlord has no case that the building was given on an individual lease to Mr. Joseph K. Thomas. There are two legal arguments being raised. One is the absence of the name of the firm in the party array, and the second, the absence of the individual partners of the firm in the party array. The second objection has been particularly raised in the context of the second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act, where the law accords protection to the tenant from the eviction sought under Section 11 (3) if the tenant depends upon the building for livelihood and no alternative building is available in the locality. We will have to answer these questions raised.

5. The eviction petition is not laid against the firm, but laid against Joseph K. Thomas. It is also mentioned that he is the managing partner of Hotel Amritha. The deed was executed between the present landlord and Joseph K. Thomas, representing Hotel Amritha.

6. There cannot be a dispute about the fact that the firm is represented by Joseph K. Thomas. A partnership firm is a compendious name for its partners. It cannot act on its own except through its partners, who formed the firm. The partnership firm is not a distinct legal personality separate from its partners, like a company. The partners are jointly and severally liable. The definition of the term ‘tenant’ is found in the Rent Control Act, where Section 2 (6) defines a tenant as a person by