IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Date of decision: 1.12.2023 Parmod Bamba. …Petitioner.

Versus Sudarshana Devi (now deceased) through her legal representative & others. …Respondents.

Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

1 Whether approved for reuporting? Yes.

For the Petitioner. o Mr.G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, alongwith Ms.Meera Devi, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr.Ashok Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Khem Raj and Ms.Pooja, Advocates, for respondent No. 1.

None for other respondents.

H Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)

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.

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

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. H

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/restpondents 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 judgHment 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-respo