Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the rejection of his appeal by the District Judge, Pali preferred under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act of 1964') which was preferred against the orders of Estate Officer dt. 25.03.1987 and 24.11.1987 by which the Estate Officer passed the order for taking possession of the premises in dispute and thereafter, passed the order for recovery of mesne profits amounting to Rs.50,623/ -. Brief facts of the case are that a shop No.20 along with god own was allotted to firm Kesrimal Sinnalal of Sumerpur. Said shop was damaged in a fire which broke on 08.05.1981. Respondent Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (KUMS) initiated proceedings under Section 4 of the Act of 1964 for eviction of the said firm Kesrimal Sinnalal on the ground of default in payment of rent as according to respondent KUMS, the said firm did not pay the rent from 01.05.1981 and even after the notice dt. 25.07.1983 which was served by respondent KUMS upon the said firm. Said firm was served with notice by the Estate Officer and Kesrimal submitted his objections to the claim of the respondent KUMS. Kesrimal submitted that he was sole proprietor of the firm and due to fire, his entire business was ruined and he was not liable to pay any rent. Kesrimal's contention was that the respondent authorities assured that they will get the shop repaired. Kesrimal prayed for quashing the proceedings initiated by the respondent. After filing the reply, said Kesrimal died and that fact came on record on 12.06.1984 in the proceedings under the Act of 1964. Thereafter, a notice was issued to Ratanlal, alleged partner of the said firm, which was served upon him as is clear from copy of order -sheet placed on record by the petitioner. Said Ratanlal submitted reply on 12.02.1987 stating therein that he is not the partner in the firm and he was only a Munim in the firm. Copy of this reply is also placed on record by the petitioner. That plea was not accepted by the Estate Officer and passed the eviction order on 25.03.1987. Ultimately, on 30.11.1987, the possession of the shop was also taken over by the respondent KUMS. Thereafter, the shop in question and godown was allotted to the respondent No. 4 on 18.04.1988. However, the possession of godown was not handed over to the respondent No. 4 till 29.03.1996 because of the fact that petitioner Sinnalal preferred appeal against the above two orders dt. 25.03.1987 and 24.11.1987 before the District Judge, Pali. The District Judge, Pali vide impugned order dt. 22.03.1996 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on merit as well as on the ground of limitation as in the opinion of District Judge, the petitioner failed to explain Sinnalal v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and Ors., 2008 (1) WLN 347 the delay in preferring the appeal in the year 1994 to challenge the orders passed in the year 1987. Hence, this writ petition.
(3.) ACCORDING to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the notice Annex. 1 was issued in the name of firm Kesrimal Sinnalal whereas the notice should have been to all the partners of the firm if the stand taken by the respondents is accepted that the said firm was a partnership firm. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhotelal Pyarelal The Partnership Firm and Ors. v. : [1985]1SCR268 , the proceedings for eviction against the firm in the name of the firm is not maintainable and all the partners of the firm are required to be impleaded as party in the proceedings for eviction. It is also submitted that this Court in the judgment delivered in the case of Sita Ram and Anr. v. State of Raj and Ors. reported in, 1988 (1) RLR 991 also held that if the order is passed without impleading the legal representatives and partners of a firm, the proceedings for eviction are vitiated. In view of the above reason, the order passed by the Estate Officer dt. 25.03.1987 is absolutely illegal and void as has been passed against the dead person and that too without impleading any of the necessary parties in the proceedings. It is submitted that the initiation of the proceedings in the name of the firm was illegal, apart from the fact that after death of Kesrimal, proceedings could not have been continued.;