9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal abatement due to failure to substitute heirs and legal representatives of deceased partners in a tenancy eviction case. Analysis: The respondent, a landlord, filed a suit for eviction against a firm and its partners, claiming impairment of the demised premises. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the landlord succeeded on appeal, obtaining a decree for eviction, mesne profits, and costs. Subsequently, the firm and partners filed a second appeal in the High Court. During the appeal, two partners passed away, and the High Court considered whether the appeal abated due to the failure to substitute the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased partners within the limitation period. The High Court held that since the suit was against the firm and partners, and a decree was passed against both, abatement was necessary to avoid conflicting decrees. However, the Supreme Court questioned this decision. The plaintiff unequivocally treated the firm as the tenant in the eviction suit, with partners impleaded as proper parties. The plaintiff, following Order XXX, Rule 1 of the CPC, chose to sue the firm and joined partners as proper parties. The material averment in the plaint established the firm as the tenant. The question arose whether, in a suit against a firm with partners as proper parties, the death of a partner necessitated substitution of heirs. Order XXX, Rule 4 exempts the need to join legal representatives of a deceased partner when sued under the firm's name. Moreover, the death of a proper party, without any relief sought against them personally, does not impact the suit, especially where the partnership may dissolve post-death. In this case, the deceased partners were only proper parties, and no relief was sought against them individually. The decree for eviction was to operate against the firm, as it was the tenant. The Supreme Court clarified that the death of proper parties, without substitution of heirs, does not lead to abatement when relief is claimed against the existing parties. The Court highlighted that the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased partners did not join the firm or become partners in place of the deceased. Therefore, the appeal should not abate due to the death of the proper parties. Consequently, the High Court's decision to dispose of the appeal as abated was erroneous. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's abatement order, and remitted the matter for disposal on merits. The respondent was directed to bear the costs of the hearing.
|
