The High Court allowed a civil revision petition challenging the rejection of an eviction RCOP. The Court held that filing against a partnership firm is not fatal if partners are added as respondents, relying on Chotelal Pyarelal v. Shikarchand.
The RCOP was directed to be taken on file, numbered, and disposed of on merits within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRP(NPD)No.4190 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 22.12.2020 PRONOUNCED ON : 18.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
CRP(NPD)No.4190 of 2017
(Through Video Conferencing)
K.Purushotham Petitioner
Vs
1. M/s.Alankar Fancy and General Stores
by its Partner K.Bhakthavatsalam
Chennai 26
2. K.Bhakthavatsalam
3. C.K.Ramakrishnan Respondents
Prayer:- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated, 03.10.2017, passed in RCOP.SR.No.47064 of 2017 by the Rent Controller, X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, rejecting the said RCOP and to take the RCOP on file.
For Petitioner : M/s.Surana and Surana
For Respondent : Mr.R.Neelakandan
ORDER 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, to set aside the order dated, 03.10.2017, passed in RCOP.SR.No.47064 of 2017 by the Rent Controller, X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, rejecting the said RCOP without numbering and to take the RCOP on file.
CRP(NPD)No.4190 of 2017
CRP(NPD)No.4190 of 2017
using the premises for the purpose other than for which it was leased out and committing acts of waste.
“Rent Control and Eviction – Eviction petition – Parties – Eviction petition cannot be filed against a partnership firm – But eviction petition not liable to be dismissed merely on ground of such misdescription of Respondents, when partners of the firm appearing before the Court – Amendment by way of addition of names of the partners of the firm as Respondents and other consequential amendments must be allowed – Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 30 and Order 6, Rule 17.”
accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
18.01.2021
CRP(NPD)No.4190 of 2017
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
Srcm
Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking Srcm
To
1. The X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai
Pre-Delivery Order in
CRP(NPD)No.4190 of 2017
18.01.2021
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a civil revision petition seeking the setting aside of an order rejecting an eviction petition as not numbered is maintainable.
Whether an eviction petition filed against a partnership firm, with partners added as respondents, is liable to be dismissed merely on the ground of misdescription.
Whether the lower court erred in rejecting the recovery/eviction petition without considering the gaps in the pleadings if the grounds of eviction are disclosed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s.Chhotelal Pyarelal and others Vs. ShikarchandRelied on¶14
1984 4 SCC 343 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
K.Purushotham
M/s.Alankar Fancy and General Stores
K.Bhakthavatsalam
C.K.Ramakrishnan
A.A.Nakkiran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
