M/S. Dass Motors vs Anuj Gupta & Anr
2015 Latest Caselaw 7487 Del

*                    HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       RC. REV. 447/2015 & CM APPL.16855/2015

                                      Decided on: 30th September, 2015

M/S. DASS MOTORS                                     ...... Petitioner
                       Through:   Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate.

                         Versus
ANUJ GUPTA & ANR.                             ...... Respondents
                       Through:   Nemo.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant

against the impugned order dated 15.04.2015 by virtue of which

the leave to defend application of the petitioner-tenant was rejected

and consequently an eviction order was passed in favour of the

respondents-landlord and against the petitioner-tenant.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the

instant case although the tenant in respect of the suit property was

M/s. Dass Motors, a proprietary concern, the leave to defend has

been rejected and an order of eviction has been passed, but as a

matter of fact it has been stated that so far as M/s. Dass Motors is

concerned, it was a Partnership concern when tenancy commenced

and that the essence of the matter was that said partnership became

a proprietary concern of which Mahender Kumar Bhabuta husband

of present proprietor petitioner firm, Kavita Bhabuta was the sole

Proprietor. After the death of Mahender Kumar Bhabuta in 2012,

Kavita Bhabuta became the sole proprietor of M/s. Dass Motors. It

has been stated that the eviction petition in the name of M/s. Dass

Motors Limited only when no such partnership existed was wrong

and such petition was not maintainable.

3. I have gone through the impugned order. The learned Trial Court

has rightly rejected this plea of the present petitioner for grant of

leave to defend on account of the fact that it was admittedly the

case of the respondent that the present petitioner firm was inducted

as a tenant in respect of the suit property. In case of proprietary

concern, the Proprietor can be sued by a party. Even if the

Proprietor is not made a party to a dispute for whatever reasons, the

fact of the matter remains that a proprietor can be sued not only in

his individual capacity but also in the name of the firm. For this

reason I feel that there is no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional

error in the order passed by the learned ARC. Accordingly, the rent

revision is without any merit and the same is dismissed.

4. Since the present petitioner has already availed six months time in

terms of Section 14 (7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, necessary

steps be taken by the petitioner/tenant with a view to enable the

respondent/landlord to retrieve the possession of the tenanted

premises in accordance with law.

5. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

6. File be consigned to record room.

V.K. SHALI, J.

SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 Vk