Yatindra Singh, J. - (1.) M /s. Shyam Manohar & Sons (H.U.F.) (Petitioner) are admittedly landlord of the premises in dispute. The premises in dispute is the first floor of house situated at 207, West End Road, Meerut Cantt., District Meerut Shyam Mohan resides in the ground floor of the same. It is admitted fact that the landlord let out the premises in dispute of M/s. Om Prakash Baldev Kishan a registered firm (the firm for short) some time in the year 1968. It was to be used for the residential purposes of the Firms's employees. Sri Anil Kumar filed an application on 19.5.1988. This application was for allotment of the premises in dispute. In this application he alleged that the Firm has vacated the premises in dispute, one Bhim Sen Abbi son of Sardari Lal is in unauthorised occupation of the same. Subsequently landlord also filed an application on 19.2.1990 for release of the premises in dispute (Annexure 4 to the writ petition). Landlord filed another application alongwith an affidavit on 2.7.1991 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition). This was information to the District Magistrate that Om Prakash, one of the partners of the Firm is no more, he died on 19.5.1991. The District Magistrate dismissed the application filed by Anil Kumar on 31.3.1992. He held: Bhim Sen Abbi is a constituted attorney of the Firm and is entitled to live in the premises in dispute on its behalf. His possession cannot be treated to be unauthorised. In view of this finding he held that the premises in dispute is not vacant. It is against this order that present writ petition is filed. There is no mention in this order that the application filed by the landlord is also dismissed. Sri Dinesh Dwivedi, learned Counsel for Respondents argued that the application for release filed by landlord is different case than the application filed by Anil Kumar. Landlord can neither have grievance against this order nor can they challenge it. They should pursue their own application. This is not correct The application filed by Anil Kumar and the landlord were for the same premises. They are filed on one and the same ground. They have to be dealt together, it is true that the impugned order does not specifically state that landlord's application has been dismissed but the result of dismissal of the application filed by Anil Kumar, is that the release application of the landlord stands dismissed. This is fortified by the fact that no other order has been passed on landlord's application. No other proceedings have been taken on the application filed by the landlord.
(2.) THE landlord in their application dated 2.7.1991 has brought to the notice of the District Magistrate that Om Prakash one of the partner of the Firm is no more. This is not denied. If this be true then the partnership has come to an end. What is the legal effect of this. What is its effect on possession of Bhim Sen Abbi? Does it still continue to be authorised? Whether the partnership has been reconstituted? What is legal effect? None of these questions have been discussed by the District Magistrate, he should have addressed himself to these points. The writ petition is allowed with costs. The order dated 31.3.1992 is quashed. The District Magistrate will decide the application of the landlord for release of the premises in dispute in right of what has been said above.;