ORDER : 1. The Revision Petitioner is the Tenant and the Respondent is the Landlord. 2. This Revision Petition is directed against the concurrent finding of the Tribunal and the Rent Control Appellate Authority in allowing the petition in R.C.O.P.No.38 of 2010 filed by the Landlord for eviction on the ground of owners occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act, 1960. 3. The case of the petitioner/Landlord is that the ground floor portion of the property, bearing Door No.12 and 13, Amman Sannathi Street, Madurai Town, was let out for lease to one R.R. Rathod to run a Readymade Shop in the name and style of “Milan Readymade Shop”. The petitioner/landlord and his sons are carrying on business under the name and title of “Gopal Tooth Power, Gopal Toothpaste, Raja Enterprises in a rented building. Since they reqire the premises for owners occupation, the respondent-Tenant is liable to vacate and hand over the vacant possession. 4. Whereas, the case of the tenant/respondent as defence to the eviction proceedings is that, the plea of requirement for own use and occupation is false. The petition for owners occupation is filed with motive to get more rent for the building Rs.12,000/- and paid as rent regularly. Just to enhance the rent, the petition is filed. The landlord owns several properties in and around Madurai. Therefore, there is no bona fide in filing the petition. Further, the tenant is a partnership firm. Without impleading all the partners, the petition for eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, is not maintainable and in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in M/s Chhotelal Pyarelal, The Partnership Firm and others vs. Shikharchand reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1570. 5. The trial Court allowed the petition and ordered eviction. On appeal, the same was considered and confirmed. Aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the tenant/revision petitioner has preferred this revision petition on the ground that, the Courts below failed to consider the legal issue regarding maintainability of the eviction proceedings, without impleading all the parties of the firm and failed to consider the evidence revealing the ownership of several buildings within the town available for the landlord to occupy including the first floor portion in the same building. 6. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner herein forcibly submitted that in AIR 1984 SC 1570 (M/s Chhotelal Pyarelal, The Partnership Firm and others v. V.Shikharchand), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to the proceedings under the Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960, which is composite Act, both substantial as well as procedural law in build. Order 30 of Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to the cases under Rent Control Act, 1960. Therefore, without impleading all the partners of the partnership firm, the eviction petition is not maintainable. Overlooking the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court is against the law of precedent enshrined in Article 141 of the Indian Constitution. The landlord though is in possession of first floor of the same building, he has admittedly kept vacant. This only reveals, the landlord's requirment is not bona fide. 7. The requirment of the property for own use and occupation being a question of fact, the Court is inclined not to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Except to reiterate that, when the landlord-petitioner and his sons have been manufaturing and trading of various consumerable products and carrying on the same in the rental premises, their bonafide in seeking the possession of the building let out to the tenant does not warrants doubt. The possession of first floor portion is admitted by the landlord. He has kept files in the said portion and in his discretion. He has chosen the portion in the ground as place suitable for his business. It is not the case of the tenant that, the landlord is not a businessman dealing in products reputed for several decades. His contention is that, while he has established the business at the demise premises by purchasing the adjustant building bearing Door No.14, Sannathi Street and put up his showroom at Door Nos.12, 13 and 14 as contiguous unit, the relative hardship has not been taken note by the Courts below and the malafide intention of the landlord to choose the ground floor, while the first floor with same extent is kept vacant. The landlord has not proved that he and his sons are carrying on business in the rental premises and he has also not proved that the tenant is having an own building at K.K.Nagar, Madurai and running the same business in it. The landlord has not proved that he and his sons are carrying on business in the rental premises and he has also not proved that the tenant is having an own building at K.K.Nagar, Madurai and running the same business in it. Thus, both in bonafide requirement and relative hardship, the plea of the tenant, who is the revision petitioner, is unsustainable. 8. The other contention regarding non-impleading of all the tenants and the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Chhotelal Pyarelal, The Partnership Firm and others case, is to be noted that the revision petitioner herein are running Readymade Shop since 1973. The person with whom the landlord entered into the agreement is Mr. R.R. Rathod and the eviction proceeeding is initiated against Milan Readymade Shop represented by one of its Partner R.R. Rathod. 9. In his counter, it is specifically pleaded that the petition as framed is not maintainable in law, while admittedly the respondent is a partnership firm impleading one partner alone as respondent is improper. The landlord contention that the privity of contract was only with R.R. Rathod, who represented the firm, agreement was only with R.R. Rathod and rent was received from R.R. Rathod alone cannot be accepted. Therefore, this revision petition is maintainable. 10. The trial Court, relying upon the evidence of Mr.Vora-RW1, who is one of the partners of Milan Readymade Shop, who has admitted the fact that only Rathod was entering with the landlord on behalf of the partnership firm and he alone was a signatory to the lease agreement, has held that the petition cannot be dismissed for non-impleading the other partners. The judgment in M/s Chhotelal Pyarelal, The Partnership Firma nd others vs. V.Shikharchand reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1570 has been distinguished by the trial court based on the facts. 11. The appellate Court, after considering several other judgments in respect of this legal issue, relying emphasis on the Division Bench Judgment of Kerala High Court and held that the impleading partner, who has signed in the lease deed, is sufficient to maintain the eviction petition. 12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently argued that the Division Bench Judgment of the Kerala High Court is not binding on the Courts in Tamil Nadu. 12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently argued that the Division Bench Judgment of the Kerala High Court is not binding on the Courts in Tamil Nadu. The law of precedent as envisaged under Article 141 of the Constitution of India is flouted by the Courts below by interpreting the law declared by the Hon'bel Supreme Court in M/s Chhotelal Pyarelal, The Partnership Firm and others case. This amounts to judicial indicipline, dishonesty and impropriety. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the misdescription of parties ought to rectified. Unless rectified, the eviction petition is not maintainable. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the long and short cause title of the petition have been shown as representative of Milan Readymade Shop and he has not made a party to the proceedings. So, even if one take the cause title as it is, if the firm is the partnership firm, one of the partner alone is arrayed as sole respondent and none of the other partners are arrayed as respondents. Rathod name is shown as a person representing the firm. Since a parnerhsip firm is not being a juristic body, it has to be represented through some human agency to sue and to be sued. Thus, in addition to the partnership firm, it is a legal necessity to implead all the partners of the firm, as per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Chhotelal Pyarelal, The Partnership Firm and others case consistently followed by the Madras High Court in other judgments. 13. A gross deviation to the settled proposition of law is liable to be set right by allowing the revision petition. 14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent herein in defence of the judgment submitted that the judgment of the M/s Chhotelal Pyarelal, The Partnership Firm and others case is on different fact and in respect of Bearar Law. Whereas the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, while dealing with Rent Control Act of Kerala, whose provisions are akin to the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, has set forth the law as applicable to the Rent Control Appeals. Further, the other judgments relied by the High Court follwing M/s Chhotelal Pyarelal, The Partnership Firm and others case are factually different. Further, the other judgments relied by the High Court follwing M/s Chhotelal Pyarelal, The Partnership Firm and others case are factually different. In this case, it is admitted fact that by RW1, Vora that since 1973 it was Rathod, who was dealing with the landlord, Rathod alone was signatory to the lease agreement. RW1 as partner to Milan has accompined with Rathod to lawyers office. Having knowledge about the eviction proceedings, he has deposed as RW1 on behalf of the tenant firm. Therefore, the hyper technical plea misquoting the Supreme Court judgment is unsustainable. By not impleading the other parties, the revision petitioner is no way prejudiced. The Rent Control Appeal being social welfare legislation, to be tried summarily, when all the parties concern were aware of the proceedings and effectively participated collectively, non-inclusion of all the parties no way disentitle to the landlord right to sustain the petition for eviction. 15. The petition as laid is against Milan Readymade Shop represented through one of its Partner R.R.Rathod. On receipt of the notice, Mr. R.R.Rathod has entered appearance through his counsel and has filed counter. In his counter, he has affixed his signature in the seal for “Milan”, partner. In the counter, Mr. R.R.Rathod has admitted the landlord tenant relationship and he became the tenant under the petitioner in the year 1973 for non-residential purpose. It is also admitted by him that he is running a Ready made cloth shop under the name and style of “Milan”. It is also averred in his counter that the petition is not maintainable in law. Impleading one partner alone as the respondent partnership firm is improper. It is pertinent to note that while pleading non-maintainability, he has not disclosed the name of the other partners. 16. In M/s Chhotelal pyarelal, The Partnership Firm and others case, when the issue whether Order 30, Rule (1) of C.P.C., is applicable to C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order (1949), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as: “Since the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to proceedigns under the Rent Control 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 O.30 of the C.P.C., that a firm can sue and be sued in its own name without the partners being impleaded eonomine. Therefore, the firm could not be sued in the firm name by the landlord in so far as the application for eviction under the Rent Control Order was concerned. However, this cannot by itself result in the dismissal of the application, filed for eviction of the firm by the landlord, as it would be merely a case of misdescription. Such misdescription can be corrected at any stage of the proceedings as there can be no doubt that the partners of the firm were before the Court though in a wrong name. Consequently, the landlord was allowed to amend the cause title of the original eviction application and to add the names of the partners of the firm along with the firm.” (para 2) 17. The ratio laid in this case is that in Houses and Rent Control Act, Order 30, Rule 1 of C.P.C., is not applicable. So, a partnership firm, which is a compendious name for the partners constituting it, cannot be sue or sued in its name, without the partners being impleaded eonomine. At the same time, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that though in an application for eviction under the Rent Control Order/Act cannot be filed in the name or against the firm, it will not result in dismissal of the application, as it would be merely a case of misdescription. 18. When relying upon M/s Chhotelal Pyarelal judgment, it was canvassed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the petition filed against the firm, without impleading its partners is not maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Shah Phoolchand Lalchand v. Parvathi Bai reported in (1989) 1 SCC 556 , has held in para 3 as under: “3. Mr.Nayar, learned counsel for the appellants has urged before us that the impugned judgment must be set aside as the eviction petition was filed against the appellant's firm and one other partnership firm, M/s Adeshwar Glass Mart without joining any of the partners of the said firms as respondents or serving them as partners and hence, the eviction petition was not maintainable at all. He placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in M/s Chhotelal Pyarelal v. Shikarchand. In that case an eviction petition was filed by the respondent-landlord against the appellant-a partnership firm-underClause 13(3) and (vii) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. The appellant raised a preliminary objection that the application against the partnership firm was not maintainable without joining its partners as respondents. It was held by this Court that it is only by virtue of the provisions of Order XXX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, that a firm can sue and be sured in its own name without the partners being impleaded. It was pointed out by Mr.Nayar that the Code of Civil Procedure was not applicable to the proceedings under the said Rent Act either and hence, the raio laid down in the aforesaid decision was directly applicable to the case before us. In our view, it is not open to Mr.Nayar to raise this contention at this stage at all. This contention is not one which would have been fatal to the eviction petition. Had this contention been raised in the trial Court or even in the first appellate Court, it would have been open to the respondent to amend the eviction petition and join the partners as respondents. In the aforesaid decision in Chhotelal Pyarelal case relied upon by Mr.Nayar, the objection to the maintainability of the petition was raised at the earliest stage and was wrongly negative by the trial Court. In fact, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 345, para 2) 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 tht the partners of the firm are before the Court though in a wrong name.” 19. Therefore, when it is admitted by the respondent-tenant that only R.R.Rathod was representing the firm and he entered into rental agreement with the landlord on behalf of the firm, it is evident that the active and known partner of the Firm has been arrayed as party, but in wrong name. Therefore, when it is admitted by the respondent-tenant that only R.R.Rathod was representing the firm and he entered into rental agreement with the landlord on behalf of the firm, it is evident that the active and known partner of the Firm has been arrayed as party, but in wrong name. While the other partners take advantage of the agreement entered by him with landlord as for him and on behalf of the other partners, same logic and parameter should extend, when he was arrayed as party to the proceedings as the representative of the partnership firm. 20. Further, it is also evident from the counter filed by Rathod for “Milan” as partner, though he has said, there are other partners, he has not disclosed, who are they and where they reside. After deliberately withholding the information exclusively within the knowledge of Rathod, he cannot take advantage of his own omission. To say further, the landlord, who was dealing only with Rathod had the contract was only with him. Since he was running the business in the name of Milan Readymade shop, the cause title describes the firm name and R.R. Rathod name as representative of the firm. 21. For the first time in the proceedings, the revision petitioner, when one of the partner Mr.Vora, was examined as RW1 on 13.06.201, has produced the partnership deed of “Milan”, dated 20.02.2004 disclosing the details of its partner. Thus, it appears that the name of the firm in which Rathod was partner and running business was not “”Milan Readymade shop” but only “Milan”. The respondent has withheld this information to the Court until Ex.R4 marked. In M/s Chhotelal Pyraelal case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order (1949) only pointed out that in Rent Control Proceedings, CPC does not apply and Order 30 of C.P.C has no application. Later, the Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in Shah Phoolchand Lalchand case, while dealing with the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildigns (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960, after referring M.s Chhotelal Pyarelal case, has categorically held the plea of misdescription ought to have taken at the earliest point of time. Later, the plea is not permissible. 22. In the present case, non-disclosure of correct name of the partnership firm and its partners, the landlord renders the plea of misdescription is irrelevant. Later, the plea is not permissible. 22. In the present case, non-disclosure of correct name of the partnership firm and its partners, the landlord renders the plea of misdescription is irrelevant. More so, when the person with whom the landlord entered into agreement is a party to the proceedings and one another partner has come before the Court to depose as witness. The underlying spirit of Audi alteram partem is fully satisfied. Misdescription even if any will not enure any right to the tenant, who has wantonly withheld the correct description. 23. Therefore, this Court finds error or irregularity of the finding of the tribunal and the appellant authority. Further, the Courts below have rightly considered the dicta laid by the Apex Court and found the facts of the case does not warrants application of the said dicta. The person, who is at default, cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own fault. When the miscreptive of the tenant is not born out of malafide intention and the interested parties have participated through their agent effectively, no prejudice is caused misdescription even if any. 24. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Considering the commercial activity of the Revision Petitioner-tenant, three months time from today is granted for vacating and handing over the vacant possession of the demise premises to the landlord. No costs.