Tenancy to individual predating partnership deed upheld; eviction under public premises act for arrears and own use justified absent proof of firm tenancy, despite rent payments by firm.

1.By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:-

“That a writ in the nature of certiorari may very kindly be passed for quashing of order dt. 4.9.2018 and 20.09.2007 passed by Respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively as contained in Annexure P-7 and P-5.”

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Authorities under the H.P. Public Premises (Land Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971, in terms whereof, the predecessor in interest of the present petitioners was ordered to be evicted from the premises in issue.

3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that proceedings were initiated against one Shri Khurana, Proprietor of M/s Himachal Iron Store, Parwanoo, under the H.P. Public Premises (Land Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971.

4. In terms of order dated 12.03.1999, copy of which is appended with the petition as Annexure P-1, the petition under Section 4 filed by respondent No. 3 herein was disposed of by the Authority by returning the findings that it stood proved by the respondent that the rent was being paid regularly and further as the requisite notice in terms of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not sent through registered post and the fact that posting and delivery thereof was not proved, therefore, tenancy had not terminated in accordance with law.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the Cooperative Society preferred an appeal and this appeal was disposed of on 24.08.1999 (Annexure P- 2), in terms whereof the appeal was dismissed.

6. Thereafter fresh proceedings were initiated against Keshav Ram Khurana, Proprietor of M/s Himachal Iron Store, Parwanoo, under the said Act, on 18.09.2000 on the ground that the tenant was not paying rent and further the premises were required by the Society for its own use. A preliminary objection was taken with regard to the maintainability of the proceedings inter alia on the ground that the tenancy was of a partnership firm, impleaded respondent was only one of the partners and there were two other partners also running the same business.

7. The Authority, vide Annexure P-3, dated 20.09.2007, allowed the petition by holding that the evidence adduced and arguments put forth by the Counsel demonstrated that the petitioner was a registered Society under the relevant statute and was the owner of the property in issue. The premises were allotted to respondent Mr. Khurana on monthly rent of Rs.50/- and on account of non-payment of rent by the respondent, the tenancy of the respondent was rightly cancelled vide petitioner’s resolution No. 31.08.1994 Ext. P-1. The Authority further held that the respondent had failed to prove whether there were three partners or not as alleged by placing on record the documents as evidence and the partnership deed Mark-A seem to have been drawn on 01.04.1983 between Keshav Khurana, Krishna Devi and Krishan Kant, whereas the disputed portion was allotted prior to that to respondent Keshav Khurana on 23.11.1982, who had paid rent on 23.11.1982.The Authority also held that the partnership deed was not registered and no evidence was led in support of its authenticity.

8. The relevant portion of the order for the purpose of convenience is being quoted herein below:-

“From the above discussion, evidence adduced and arguments put forth by the counsels of both the parties, it is observed that the petitioner is a registered society under the provisions of