JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

Instant petition has been preferred by petitioner/tenant against order dated 27.6.2023, passed by Rent Controller Court No. 1, Shimla in Miscellaneous Application No. 1204 of 2021 in Rent Case No. 900241/2014, titled as Sudershana Devi Vs. M/s Super Sanitation and others preferred by respondent No. 1/landlord for eviction of tenant(s) from the commercial premises under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (herein after referred as ‘Rent Act’).

2. Respondents No. 2 to 5 herein are also respondents in Rent Petition alongwith petitioner herein. Before Rent Controller, all of them alongwith petitioner herein are being represented by one and the same counsel through whom present petition has been preferred and their interest is common, therefore, notice was not issued to them in present petition.

3. Respondent No. 2 M/s Super Sanitation, a partnership firm, has been sued through partner Parmod Bamba by impleading all known surviving partners, including Parmod Bamba, as respondents in the capacity of partners of M/s Super Sanitation.

4. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, shall be addressed by their status before the Rent Controller, i.e. landlord and tenant(s).

5. Before the Rent Controller, Eviction Petition has been filed in the year 2014, wherein tenants/respondents are duly served and they have filed reply taking an objection that Eviction Petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and on the basis of their pleadings an issue has also been framed for adjudication by the Rent Controller.

6. On 26.10.2021, tenants/respondents filed Miscellaneous Application No. 1204 of 2021 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading one Usha Viz as party/respondent in the Eviction Petition. It was claimed in the application that rent note, executed between the parties at the time of renting out the premises on 21.3.1983, created a tenancy in favour of M/s Super Sanitation, a partnership firm consisting of partners namely Parmod Kumar, Pushipinder Kumar, Paramjit, Rajeev Kumar, all sons of S.L. Bamba and Smt. Shanti Rani wife of Sh. S.L. Bamba and as per stipulation in the agreement, tenancy right with respect to the shop in reference vested in the said five partners of M/s Super Sanitation, partnership firm. It was further claimed in the application that all the partners were entitled to do business in any name and style in the premises in dispute and all aforesaid persons, in their individual capacity, were tenants in the said shop and the tenancy created was commercial tenancy and on death of one partner of the firm Shanti Rani, apart from her sons who are respondents/tenants No. 2 to 5 in the Rent Petition, as per provisions of Hindu Succession Act, Usha Viz, being daughter of deceased Shanti Rani, also inherited tenancy rights. It was alleged in the application that the said fact was not disclosed by landlord/petitioner in the petition filed by her despite the fact that tenancy would be inherited by all legal representatives of deceased tenant and, therefore, it has been claimed that no effective judgment and decree can be passed until or unless legal representative Usha Viz, being a necessary party, is arrayed as a party in Eviction Petition. It was also submitted that no harm or prejudice would be caused to the opposite party on impleading Usha Viz as party-respondent in the Rent Petition. It was claimed on behalf of tenant that Usha Viz during the life time of Shanti Rani had been ordinarily carrying on business alongwith Shanti Rani in the premises in reference.

7. By filing reply, application was opposed by landlord on the ground that application was filed after seven years of filing of Eviction Petition and the tenant(s) were estopped from filing the application on account of their own acts, deeds, conduct, omission as well as acquiescence. It was further contended that Rent Controller had already framed an issue with respect to non-joinder of necessary par