Honble MADAN, J. –(1). This first appeal has been preferred by Prabhu Dayal (landlord) defendant-appellant against the judgment & decree dated 8.10.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.3 Jaipur City, Jaipur by which Civil Suit for declaration filed by Sushil Kumar (alleged tenant) plaintiff-respondent has been decreed.

(2). The facts giving rise to this appeal in a narrow compass are that suit for eviction was filed by appellant Prabhudayal (landlord) against Satyanarain and Omprakash, who are arrayed as proforma defendants-respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in the present appeal for their eviction from a shop/show-room which was let out by the appellant to the latter, situated at plot No. 4 near Truck Stand, Transport Nagar, Jaipur. In that eviction Suit No. 129/93 the case of the appellant was that on 1.7.1980 as per rent note dated 10.7.1980 he had let out the suit premises to Satyanarain and Omprakash who started business of automotive parts under the name and style of M/s. Delhi Auto Agencies. It was agreed between the parties that monthly rent of the shop premises shall be paid by Sushil Kumar respondent No. 1 who was not arrayed as defendant to the eviction suit by the appellant landlord. In that suit, eviction was sought on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.8.1992 and so also the reasonable and bonafide necessity was pleaded by the landlord on the assertion that the suit premises were required for business of Anil Kumar and his brother Sushil Kumar. Another ground asserted was that the tenants have closed the suit shop as they were not using the same for more than six months. During the proceedings in the eviction suit, Sushil Kumar (respondent-plaintiff herein) moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. on the assertion inter-alia that he has been doing business as one of partners of M/s. Delhi Auto Agency ever since the inception of the Firms tenancy in suit premises on whose behalf, the rent was being paid through cheques under his signatures, and that on 5.12.1980, the partner ship stood dissolved culminating into formation of a new Partnership Firm established by him and since then he has been proprietor of M/s. Delhi Auto Agency having been in possession of the suit shop as tenant but a forged rent note has been executed by defendants Satyanarain and Omprakash in favour of the landlord and therefore, he was a necessary party to the eviction suit. Reply to the aforesaid application of Sushil Kumar was filed by the landlord. The trial Court dismissed the said application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC by order dated 15.9.1984 (Ex.A/4) by arriving at the conclusion that as is evident from the partnership deed dated 12.8.1980, the suit shop was let out by the land lord w.e.f. 1.7.1980 to the firm through its only two partners namely; Satyanarain and Omprakash and further from the rent note it was borne out that only two persons were described as partners of M/s. Delhi Auto Agency, therefore, they being partners had only to be dealt with as tenants, and there was no description of third person and hence the contention of Sushil Kumar (respondent No.1) was that as he was partner of the firm he had derived tenancy rights on the basis of the said deed and a right to continue as tenant in the suit premises being partner, was rejected outright by the said court. In the order (Exh.A/4) it was observed that since Sushil Kumar (plaintiff herein) had no right or locus-standi to contest the eviction suit, no legal right will float in his favour as regards the suit premises and consequently application of Su-shil Kumar under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was dismissed as being not maintainable since he was not a necessary party to be impleaded to the eviction suit. Against the said order (Exh.A/4) Sushil Kumar preferred revision petition (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1395 of 94) which was dismissed by this Courts order dated 6.12.1994 being not maintainable on merits. However, the Suit No. 129/93

Click Here to Read the rest of this document