- (1.) The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act for eviction of the respondents from the premises in question. An application was moved by the petitioner for permission to amend the petition. Vide the impugned order dated 29.9.2010, the said application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh. Hence, the present petition.
(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Rent Controller had erred in dismissing the application for amendment of the petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner merely sought to correct the name and description of the petitioner and plead certain facts which had transpired during the pendency of the petition. In support of his arguments, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on Purushottam Umedbhai and Co. v. M/s Manilal and Sons, 1961 AIR(SC) 325, wherein, in para 8, it was held as under :- "Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, hereinafter referred to as the Act states that :- "Partnership " is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all. Persons who have entered into partnership with one another are called individually "partners" and collectively "a firm", and the name under which their business is carried on is called the "firm name". It is clear this provision of the Act that the word "firm" or the "firm name" is merely a compendious description of all the partners collectively. It follows, therefore, that where a suit is filed in the name of a firm it is still a suit by all the partners of the firm unless it is proved that all the partners had not authorised the suit. A firm may not be a legal entity in the sense of a corporation or a company incorporated under the Indian Companies act but it is still an existing concern where business is done by a number of persons in partnership. When a suit is filed in the name of a firm it is reality a suit by all the partners of the firm. If Order XXX had not been introduced into the code and a suit had been filed in the name of a firm it would not be a case of a suit filed by a non-existent person. It would still be a suit by the partners of a firm, the defect being that they were described as a firm. In order to clarify matters a court would permit an amendment by striking out the name of the firm and replacing it with the name of the person forming the partnership. It would be a case of misdescription. Even if the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17 did not strictly apply the amendment could be permitted under Section 153 of the Civil Procedure Code because it was not a case of either adding parties or substituting parties. The High Court referred to a number of decisions to which no particular reference need be made but they do support the view taken by the High Court that in the present case the plaintiff described in the plaint as the firm of Manilal and Sons was a mere-misdescription capable of amendment and not a case where a plaint had been filed by a nonexistent person and therefore a nullity."
(3.) Learned senior counsel has further placed reliance on M/s Chhotelal Pyarelal, the partnership firm and others v. Shikharchand, 1984 AIR(SC) 1570, wherein in para 2, it was held as under :- "Now, there can be no doubt that once the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to proceedings under the HRC order, no application for eviction can be maintained against a firm in the firm name. The firm is merely a compendious name for the partners constituting it and it is only by virtue of the provisions of Order 30 of the code of Civil Procedure that a firm can sue and be sued in its own name without the partners being impleaded ecnomine. It is therefore, clear that the firm of M/s Chhotelal Pyarelal could not be sued in the firm name by the respondent in so far as the application for eviction under the HRC order, was concerned. But we agree with the Division Bench of the High Court that this cannot by itself result in the dismissal of the application. It would be merely a case of misdescription of the respondents to the application and this misdescription can be corrected at any stage of the proceedings. There can be no doubt that the partners of the firm are before the Court though in a wrong name.";