Due to dissolution of the firm execution of decree if can be continued by the firm.

These two civil revision petitions under Art.227 of the Constitution of India arise out of R.C.O.P.No.2439 of 1974, on the file of the Xth Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras.

2. Brief facts arc the following: The petitioner-firm filed R.C.O.P.No.2439 of 1974, for eviction of the respondent, on the grounds of additional accommodation, conversion and acts of nuisance. The learned Rent Controller ordered eviction on all the grounds. The respondent tenant preferred an appeal, and the order of eviction was set aside. The petitioner/landlord, aggrieved by the dismissal of the eviction petition by the Appellate Authority, preferred a revision petition in this Court in C.R.P.No. 2048 of 1978. this Court allowed the said civil revision petition and ordered eviction on the ground of nuisance. The tenant/ respondent preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No.79 of 1980, dismissed the said appeal, by judgment dated 17. 1990 and granted time till 31. 1991 to vacate the premises, on condition of the respondent filing in undertaking in the Supreme Court within four weeks from 17. 1990. That it shall not induct any other person in the suit premises and shall handover vacant and peaceful possession of the demised premises to the landlord on or before 31. 1991. The Supreme Court also further held that on the failure of the tenant filing such an undertaking within the stipulated time, the decree shall become executable forthwith. It is common ground that the respondent/ tenant did not file the undertaking and consequently the decree for eviction became executable on and from 18. 1990. As the tenant/ respondent did not file the undertaking as directed by the Supreme Court, the petitioner filed E.P.No.638of 1990, praying the executing court to issue warrants for delivery of vacant possession of veranda and two rooms in the front in premises bearing old Door Number 57, New Door Number 15, Sir Theyagaraja Road.T.Nagar, Madras-600017. When that execution petition was pending, the respondent/ tenant filed an application, namely M.P.No.1052 of 1990, purporting to be one under Scc.47 of the Civil Procedure Code, contending that the individual partners of the respondent-firm should have been brought on record, and, since the petitioner-firm has already transferred is ownership of the premises in question to one of its partners, namely, Harihar Davey, after dissolution, the decree cannot be executed by the decree-holder-firm, which is no longer in existence.

3. The executing court rejected the first contention of the respondent herein, holding that inspite of the petitioners demand for the names and addresses of the partners of the respondent-tenant (firm) during the pendency of the R.C.O.P. neither the names of the partners were given nor whispered in the counter statement that their’s was a partnership concern, and, therefore, they are estopped from raising that plea now. However, the executing court accepted the second contention of the respondent tenant and held that the decree cannot be executed by the firm. Consequent to the order passed in M.P.No.1052 of 1990, the executing court dismissed the E.P. filed by the petitioner by an one line order’. The petitioner preferred a revision under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, questioning the correctness of the order of the executing court dismissing E.P.No.638 of 1990 and preferred an appeal to the appellate authority in R.C.A.No.438 of 1991, on the file of the VIIIth Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, against allowing M.P.No.1052 of 1990.

4. When C.R.P.No.2234 of 1991 filed against the order in E.P.No.638 of 1990 came up for final disposal, after hearing learned counsel on both sides for some lime, it was felt that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority (VIIIth Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras) in R.C.A.No.438 of 1991 must be transferred to this Court and heard along with C.R.P.No.234 of 1991. Learned counsel on