ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. - (1.) Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked by the petitioner, who claims to be a partner of petitioner no.1 concern, stated to be a partnership concern, against the orders rejecting application for impleadment filed in SCC Suit filed for eviction of petitioner no. 1 concern. SCC Suit for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent came to be filed in August, 2005 against M/s B. Shahabuddin and Company 13/392-L, Civil Lines, Kanpur Nagar through its partner/ proprietor Mohd. Mirza. Mohd. Mirza in his capacity as proprietor/ Partner of M/s B. Shahabuddin and Company, is arrayed as defendant no.2. The premises, herein, is a residential accommodation as per the averment disclosed in the plaint. It is alleged that rent has not been paid of the premises since 1.4.2003 to 12.7.2005.
(2.) An application for impleadment by the petitioner has been filed with the allegation that the tenant, herein, is partnership firm and being a partner of the firm, he is entitled to be impleaded. This application for impleadment is supported by an affidavit. A further application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, stating that the suit, in the manner instituted, is defective inasmuch as the status of defendant is not correctly mentioned in the plaint and, therefore, it is liable to be rejected under Order-7 Rule-11 of Civil Procedure Code. The impleadment has been opposed by the landlord, stating that the applicant, seeking impleadment, has to prove that M/s B. Shahabuddin and Company is a partnership firm and the petitioner is its partner. In Para-3 of the objection, it is stated that M/s B. Shahabuddin and Company has been impleaded as a tenant and all persons competent can defend the suit.
(3.) It is relevant to notice that a joint written statement has been filed in which status of tenant is claimed as that of a partnership concern. Status of petitioner as a partner of concern is not disputed. The application for impleadment has been rejected by the court concerned, on the ground that no partnership deed has been annexed which may demonstrate that the petitioner was one of its partners on the creation of tenancy. An application filed for recall of such order under Section 151 of Civil Procedure code has also been rejected. While rejecting the subsequent application, the Court took notice of photocopy of the partnership deed filed by the petitioner, according to which, partnership existed w.e.f. 23.12.1997 for a period of two years. The Court has observed that since original partnership deed is not on record and it is otherwise not shown that the premises was let out to a partnership firm in the year 1969, as such, the impleadment is not warranted.;