O.P.JAIN,J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the landlord for quashing the order, Annexure Rs.10', dated 4.8.1987 and order, Annexure Rs.12', dated 27th March, 1989.
(2.) THE dispute between the parties relates to a shop No. 113, Meerganj, Allahabad. This shop was let out to Firm M/s. Hari Bill as Prabhu Dayal as early as 1939. At that time Prabhu Dayal and Ramdin Gupta were the two partners of the firm. On 19.3.1974, the shop was purchased by the present petitioner from the previous owner, Amar Nath Gupta. In 1985, the present petitioner filed an application, Annexure Rs.2', under Section 12(2) of the Act and alleged that 2-3 months back they have come to know that the partners of M/s. Hari Bilas Prabhu Dayal had been changed from time to time and after verifying this fact it came to the notice of the petitioner that in 1972, the partners were Smt. Bhagwan Devi wife of Ramdin, Ramesh Chand and Brijendra Kumar sons of Ramdin and Anand Gupta sons of Surendra Kumar Gupta. In 1977, the constitution of the firm was again changed. Smt. Bhagwan Devi and Anand Gupta were dropped and in their place Surendra Kumar Gupta son of Ramdin and Smt. Manju Gupta wife of Ashok Kumar (daughter-in-law of Ramdin Gupta), were inducted as partners. It was alleged in para 5 of Annexure Rs.2' that no permission was obtained for inducting a new partner. The respondent-tenants filed a reply, Annexure Rs.4'. It was admitted that the petitioners have purchased the shop in the year 1974. It was alleged also admitted in paragraph 20 that w.e.f. 1st April, 1976, Ramesh Chand, Brijendra Kumar Surendra Kumar and Manju Gupta wife of Ashok Kumar Gupta were admitted as partners. It was that they were inducted as partners to the knowledge and consent of the petitioner who continued to regularly accept the rent and issued receipt is the name of M/s. Hari Bilas Prabhu Dayal. It was contended in paragraphs 23 and 24 of reply, Annexure Rs.4' that no person other than the member of the family of Ramdin Gupta had been admitted as a partner. According to the respondent, Smt. Manju Gupta, being the daughter-in-law of Ramdin Gupta, is the member of the family of the earstwhile partner of the firm and she can be legally inducted as partner and no permission is legally required in this regard.
(3.) THE respondents have also filed a counter affidvit in this Court and in para 12 of the counter affidavit it is admitted that Smt. Manju Gupta was admitted as a partner w.e.f. 1.4.1976 and it was stated that she was inducted to the knowledge and consent of the petitioners.;