- (1.) THIS SCC revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (in short the Act) has been preferred against the impugned order dated 19.11.2013 passed by the Special Judge (E.C. Act), Kanpur Nagar exercising jurisdiction of Judge Small Cause, in SCC Suit No. 140/2010 rejecting the Application 53 -C -2 of the defendants to implead three daughters of the deceased/Respondent No. 2 in the suit.
(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief as is necessary for adjudication of this revision, are that the Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed suit for rent and ejectment against the defendants, inter -alia, alleging that his mother being the owner of Vivek Cinema let out the same to M/s. Rakesh Theatre, a partnership firm through its partner Sri Beerumal D. Demla as per terms and conditions embodied in the lease deed dated 31.7.1957. After the death of his mother the plaintiff became the landlord of the demised property. Sri Beerumal D. Demla also had died and the defendants are the remaining partners of the firm. Since the firm did not adhere the terms and conditions of the lease agreement and further committed default in the payment of the rent, therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for rent and ejectment after terminating their tenancy. During the pendency of the suit the Defendant No. 2 Shri Manohar Lal Demla one of the partners had died . The plaintiff moved application disclosing that since the suit is against the partnership firm and heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, who are also partners of the firm are already on record, therefore, no substitution of any other heirs of the deceased partner is required. The defendants, however, filed objections disclosing that besides, the defendants already on record the deceased Defendant No. 2 also left behind him three daughters. The tenancy was for the non -residential purposes, therefore, all the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased have become joint tenants of the demised property. It is also contended that the daughters of the deceased Defendant No. 2, who are necessary party, be also added as defendants to the suit. The plaintiff, however, contended that the tenancy was created in favour of M/s. Rakesh Theatre, a partnership firm. The Defendants No. 3 and 4 have been impleaded in the capacity as partners of the firm and therefore, the daughters of the deceased Defendant No. 2 are not liable to be substituted in place of the deceased Defendant No. 2. The trial court held that since the tenancy was in favour of the partnership firm therefore, the heirs of the deceased partner are not necessary to be impleaded as party to the suit.
(3.) THIS order of the court below is impugned in this revision. The core question involved in this revision is -whether on the death of one of the partners of a firm, his all heirs and legal representatives are liable to be impleaded as party to the suit?;