Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/petitioner and Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlady/respondent:

QUESTIONS INVOLVED:

2. Two questions involved in this writ petition are:

Firstly, whether a rent case filed without separately impleading partner of the tenant firm is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary party and, Secondly, whether appellate Court has committed a manifest error of law to dismiss the appeal on the finding of bona fide need of the son of the landlady whereas in the release application the landlady has set up her bona fide need for the disputed shop.

FACTS:

3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that it is admitted to the parties that the disputed shop is owned by the respondent-landlady. It was originally owned by her husband Sri Surendra Nath Sharma, who had inducted the defendant-petitioner as tenant in the year 1986. Subsequently, Sri Surendra Nath Sharma died. The disputed shop was inherited by the plaintiff-landlady/respondent. She filed a P.A. Case No. 15 of 2014 under Section 21(1)(a) for her bona fide need of the disputed shop. In the release application the description of the respondent has given as under:

^^eSllZ 'kkUrh eksVj QkbusUl dEiuh] eksgYyk ubZ cLrh] ihyhHkhr&Vudiqj ckbZikl jksM] vkse eksVlZ ds lkeus] rglhy] 'kgj o ftyk ihyhHkhr }kjk lk>hnkj lqHkk"k pUnz vk;q yxHkx 58 o"kZ iq= LoΠfuHkkm jke fuoklh edku uEcj 56 eksgYyk v'kksd dkyksuh] 'kgj o ftyk ihyhHkhrA**

4. Various evidences were led by the parties. The Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (S.D.) Pilibhit, allowed the aforesaid P.A. Case and decreed the suit by judgment dated 8.12.2016. Aggrieved with this judgment the defendant-tenant/petitioner filed a P.A. Appeal No. 02 of 2017 (M/s. Shanti Motor Finance Company through its partner Subhash Chandra v. Kusum Sharma) which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 16.2.2018, passed by the District Judge, Pilibhit on the ground of bona fide need of the son of the plaintiff-landlady.

5. Aggrieved with these two judgments, the defendant-tenant/petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

SUBMISSIONS:

6. Sri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/petitioner, submits as under:

(i) The release application was filed by the plaintiff-landlady without impleading partners of the firm. Therefore, the release application was liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties.

(ii) Provisions of Order XXX C.P.C. are not applicable in view of the provisions of Section 38 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rent Act 1972’) and the law laid down by Hon’ble Surpeme Court in M/s. Chhotelal Pyarelal v. Shikharchand, AIR 1984 SC 1570 (paragraph 2) and the judgment of this Court in Prabhakar Mehrotra and another v. District Judge, Kanpur and others, 1982 ARC 426 (para 34).

(iii) The landlady has set up her own bona fide need for the disputed shop but the appellate Court has not considered it at all and instead the appellate Court has recorded the finding of bona fide need of the landlady for her sons which was never the case of the plaintiff-landlady. Therefore, the dismissal of appeal by the appellate Court was without application of mind.

7. Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlady/respondent submits as under:

(i) The word “tenant” has been defined in Section 3(a) and the word “landlady” has been defined in Section 3(j) of the Rent Act 1972. Section 4(33) of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 defines the word “person” which includes any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, defines the words “partnership”, “partner”, “firm” and “firm name”. It provides that ‘Partnership” is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profit of the busines