Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.:- Petitioner-tenant Karan Sharma is in revision petition against order dated 28.4.2014 of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby his application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading Smt. Neelam Kashyap as a party in the eviction petition, was dismissed.

2. A petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter mentioned as the Act) preferred by M/s H.S.B. Estates Private Limited through its Managing Director for eviction of the petitioner-tenant and another, is pending adjudication before the Rent Controller.

3. By way of an application under Order I Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 CPC, the applicant-tenant, petitioner herein had sought to implead Smt. Neelam Kashyap on the plea that she is a partner with him in the partnership which is allegedly carrying on its business under the name & style of M/s Khayat Coffee Lounge. It is claimed that partnership between the petitioner-tenant and said Smt. Neelam Kashyap came into existence on 15.8.2008.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that though his tenancy jointly with respondent No.2 had started under respondent No.1-landlord vide lease deed dated 7.5.2008, they had entered into a partnership and has continued conducting their business but later Smt. Krishna Bansal, respondent No.2 had left the partnership whereas Smt. Neelam Kashyap was brought in as a partner with him and thus, she is a necessary party to be impleaded in the eviction petition.

5. Counsel for respondent No.1-landlord/non-applicant, however, has urged that tenancy was incepted vide lease deed dated 7.5.2008 between the respondent-landlord on the one hand and the petitioner and Smt. Krishna Bansal, respondent No.2 as joint tenants on the other hand. It is, thus, contended that since both these tenants vide lease deed dated 7.5.2008 have been joined as parties in the eviction petition, joining of Smt. Neelam Kashyap is not warranted at all. Asserting validity and legality of the impugned order, dismissal of the present petition has been sought.

6. Counsel for the parties have been heard while going through the impugned order, grounds of revision, copy of application under Order I Rule 10 CPC and its reply while appreciating other attending facts and circumstances.

7. It is an admitted case of the parties that tenancy was incepted between respondent-landlord M/s H.S.B. Estates Private Limited on the one hand and petitioner Karan Sharma and Smt. Krishna Bansal as joint tenants on the other hand vide lease deed dated 7.5.2008. Merely because later, the two joint tenants taking premises on tenancy had entered into a partnership on 22.5.2008, does not disturb the relationship under the lease deed dated 7.5.2008. Similarly, alleged exit of Smt. Krishna Bansal from such partnership joining of Smt. Neelam Kashyap with the petitioner-tenant ipso facto does not bring any change in the terms and conditions of the lease deed dated 7.5.2008.

8. Counsel for the petitioner-tenant citing Harshavardhan Chokkani Versus Bhupendra N. Patel, 2002 AIR (Supreme Court) 1373 has urged that where premises have been let out to a tenant, who subsequently with permission of the landlord carries on business in the name of the partnership entered into by him with another person and the landlord accepts rent from the partnership firm, the firm by conduct becomes the tenant. Support has also been sought from Dass Kumar and others Versus Tilak Raj and another, [2009(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2278] : 2009(3) PLR 417 (P&H) wherein it has been held that if the tenant had taken the premises on rent in individual capacity but the landlord had been accepting rent in the name of partnership entered into by the tenant with some other person, it amounts to creation of tenancy in favour of partnership by implication. Reference in this regard has also been made to M/s Amar Nath and others Versus Smt. Mehman Wanti 1973 RCR (Rent) 607 (J&K).

9. Counsel for the respondent-landlord has