S.C. Mathur, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 9-7-87 passed by the Munsif Sitapur exercising the powers of Prescribed Authority in proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
(2.) Opposite party No. 2 Smt. Radha Devi filed the aforesaid case under Section 21 against the opposite parties No. 3, 4 and 6. Opposite party No. 4 has been described as "Sitapur Lime Company through its Proprietor, Sri Dhirendra Kumar Gupta, Greekganj, Sitapur City, Sitapur". It appears that Sri Dhirendra Kumar Gupta latter filed an application that he may be impleaded in his personal name. This application was allowed and he was impleaded as opposite party No. 2-A. Thereafter the present petitioner Smt. Kishan Lalli Gupta made an application for impleadment on the plea that opposite party No. 4 is a firm of which she is one of the partners. The Prescribed Authority rejected this application by the impugned order. In the impugned order the Prescribed Authority has observed that rent receipt is on record which shows that rent is being paid by Sri Dhirendra Kumar Gupta opposite party No. 5. Thereafter it has said that if Sitapur Lime Company is a firm it can sue or be sued in the firm name through its active partners and it is not necessary to implead all the partners. Then the Prescribed Authority states "She is partner in firm she may also represent the firm if she wants. Kishan Lalli Gupta, therefore, is not tenant of the premises in eye of law, therefore, application 85/C-2 is rejected."
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Prescribed Authority has recognised the petitioner's right to represent the firm yet it has rejected the application. According to him the petitioner can effectively represent the firm and protect its interest only if she is a party to the proceedings and, therefore she should have been impleaded. The sum and substance of the finding is that from the rent receipt it appears that the tenancy is in the name of Sri Dhirendra Kumar Gupta. He may be partner of the Firm Sitapur Lime Company and one of its partner may also be a partner therein. The firm is also a party to the proceedings and one of its partners namely, Sri Dhirendra Kumar Gupta is also a party. This is sufficient. It is not necessary that all the partners of the firm should be impleaded. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim impleadment as a matter of right.;