JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Instant petition has been preferred by petitioner/tenant against order dated 27.6.2023, passed by Rent Controller Court No. 1, Shimla in Miscellaneous Application No. 1204 of 2021 in Rent Case No. 900241/2014, titled as Sudershana Devi Vs. M/s Super Sanitation and others preferred by respondent No. 1/landlord for eviction of tenant(s) from the commercial premises under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (herein after referred as ‘Rent Act’). 2. Respondents No. 2 to 5 herein are also respondents in Rent Petition alongwith petitioner herein. Before Rent Controller, all of them alongwith petitioner herein are being represented by one and the same counsel through whom present petition has been preferred and their interest is common, therefore, notice was not issued to them in present petition. 3. Respondent No. 2 M/s Super Sanitation, a partnership firm, has been sued through partner Parmod Bamba by impleading all known surviving partners, including Parmod Bamba, as respondents in the capacity of partners of M/s Super Sanitation. 4. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, shall be addressed by their status before the Rent Controller, i.e. landlord and tenant(s). 5. Before the Rent Controller, Eviction Petition has been filed in the year 2014, wherein tenants/respondents are duly served and they have filed reply taking an objection that Eviction Petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and on the basis of their pleadings an issue has also been framed for adjudication by the Rent Controller. 6. On 26.10.2021, tenants/respondents filed Miscellaneous Application No. 1204 of 2021 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading one Usha Viz as party/respondent in the Eviction Petition. It was claimed in the application that rent note, executed between the parties at the time of renting out the premises on 21.3.1983, created a tenancy in favour of M/s Super Sanitation, a partnership firm consisting of partners namely Parmod Kumar, Pushipinder Kumar, Paramjit, Rajeev Kumar, all sons of S.L. Bamba and Smt. Shanti Rani wife of Sh. S.L. Bamba and as per stipulation in the agreement, tenancy right with respect to the shop in reference vested in the said five partners of M/s Super Sanitation, partnership firm. S.L. Bamba and as per stipulation in the agreement, tenancy right with respect to the shop in reference vested in the said five partners of M/s Super Sanitation, partnership firm. It was further claimed in the application that all the partners were entitled to do business in any name and style in the premises in dispute and all aforesaid persons, in their individual capacity, were tenants in the said shop and the tenancy created was commercial tenancy and on death of one partner of the firm Shanti Rani, apart from her sons who are respondents/tenants No. 2 to 5 in the Rent Petition, as per provisions of Hindu Succession Act, Usha Viz, being daughter of deceased Shanti Rani, also inherited tenancy rights. It was alleged in the application that the said fact was not disclosed by landlord/petitioner in the petition filed by her despite the fact that tenancy would be inherited by all legal representatives of deceased tenant and, therefore, it has been claimed that no effective judgment and decree can be passed until or unless legal representative Usha Viz, being a necessary party, is arrayed as a party in Eviction Petition. It was also submitted that no harm or prejudice would be caused to the opposite party on impleading Usha Viz as party-respondent in the Rent Petition. It was claimed on behalf of tenant that Usha Viz during the life time of Shanti Rani had been ordinarily carrying on business alongwith Shanti Rani in the premises in reference. 7. By filing reply, application was opposed by landlord on the ground that application was filed after seven years of filing of Eviction Petition and the tenant(s) were estopped from filing the application on account of their own acts, deeds, conduct, omission as well as acquiescence. It was further contended that Rent Controller had already framed an issue with respect to non-joinder of necessary parties and, therefore, issue of impleadment of Usha Viz was to be adjudicated and decided at the time of final decision of the case. It was claimed that Usha Viz was not a tenant and she had no concern with the premises and had not inherited any tenancy rights, and, in any case, if it was considered so, then her estate was duly represented by respondents/tenants No. 2 to 5 and, therefore, there was no requirement of impleading Usha Viz as a party. It was claimed that Usha Viz was not a tenant and she had no concern with the premises and had not inherited any tenancy rights, and, in any case, if it was considered so, then her estate was duly represented by respondents/tenants No. 2 to 5 and, therefore, there was no requirement of impleading Usha Viz as a party. It was also stated that Usha Viz was well settled in her in-laws’ house and never did any business in the shop in reference at any point of time, rather, on date, business from premises was being carried out by partner/respondent No. 2 Parmod Bamba and the Eviction Petition had been filed by impleading all surviving partners as party-respondents and it was denied that Usha Viz had inherited the tenancy rights and business in the premises was being carried out only by Parmod Bamba and other respondents were doing their separate business. It was submitted on behalf of landlord that Usha Viz, married daughter of Shanti Rani, was not necessary party and, in any case, her tenancy rights, if any, were being looked after by other respondents/tenants. 8. Vide impugned order dated 28.6.2023 application preferred by respondents/tenants was dismissed, mainly on two grounds that landlord did not want to implead Usha Viz as a party and for having dominus litis to choose as to against whom relief was to be claimed and further, referring judgment of the Supreme Court in Kanak Lata Dass Vs. Nava Kumar Dass, 2018 (2) Him. L.R. (SC) 1305, it was concluded that in Eviction Petition, only two persons were necessary parties for decision of the suit, namely, landlord and tenant and as the landlord is claiming relief against M/s Super Sanitation etc. and is denying any relationship with Usha Viz and, therefore, landlord did not want of implead Usha Viz as a party and it was observed by the Rent Controller that landlord could not be forced to implead a person as party to the petition whom he did not want to implead. It was further observed by the Rent Controller that Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Kohli Vs. Rakesh Jain and another, (2018) 6 SCC 708 has held that in case of joint tenancy any one of legal heirs in occupation of suit premises can be impleaded as party and all of them need not to be impleaded. 9. It was further observed by the Rent Controller that Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Kohli Vs. Rakesh Jain and another, (2018) 6 SCC 708 has held that in case of joint tenancy any one of legal heirs in occupation of suit premises can be impleaded as party and all of them need not to be impleaded. 9. In present Revision Petition, it has been reiterated that tenancy in present case was created in favour of partnership firm including partner Shanti Rani (now deceased) for carrying commercial business in the said premises and after death of partner Smt. Shanti Rani, her tenancy was inherited by her daughter Usha Viz and she became partner of M/s Super Sanitation. It has been contended on behalf of tenants that partnership firm is not a legal entity and tenancy was in favour of partnership firm M/s Super Sanitation and all partners including Shanti Rani were tenants in their individual rights and that all partners are ‘Tenants in Common’, but not ‘Joint Tenants’ including Shanti Rani and after death of Shanti Rani her tenancy rights have been inherited by Usha Viz being her daughter and she became partner, thus she was also ‘Tenant in Common’, but not ‘Joint Tenant’ and, therefore, all the tenants including Usha Viz were required to be impleaded a party because any order passed in absence of Usha Viz shall not be binding upon her and will not be executable. It has been contended that the Rent Controller has wrongly applied ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Kohli’s and Kanak Lata Dass cases. 10. It has been canvassed on behalf of tenant(s) that as no effective order can be passed in absence of Usha Viz, therefore, it was incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion and jurisdiction to implead her as a necessary party by invoking powers under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, but the Rent Controller has failed to exercise power vested in it under law. It has been submitted that under Hindu Succession Act tenancy would be inherited by all legal heirs of deceased tenant and, therefore, Usha Viz has also legally inherited the tenancy of Shanti Rani and thus is necessary party. It has been submitted that under Hindu Succession Act tenancy would be inherited by all legal heirs of deceased tenant and, therefore, Usha Viz has also legally inherited the tenancy of Shanti Rani and thus is necessary party. It has been argued that despite the landlord having dominus litis to implead the parties, Court has suo motu right to implead a person as a party if presence of such party is necessary and required for adjudication and decision of the matter. It has been further contended that in the Eviction Petition all respondents/tenants have been termed as tenants, which indicates that they are tenants in common being partners but independently in individual capacity. 11. It has been further contented by learned counsel for tenant(s) that there is non-application of mind by the Rent Controller, as he has no where stated that Usha Viz was and is not a necessary party for deciding the real controversy between the parties. 12. To substantiate the plea that Rent Controller should have exercised it powers vested in it under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead Usha Viz as party, learned counsel for the tenants has referred pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others, (1992) 2 SCC 524 ; S.K. Saldi Vs. General Manager, U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and another, (1997) 9 SCC 661 ; and Jog Raj and another Vs. Banarsi Dass and another, AIR 1978 Punjab and Haryana 189. It has been contended that Rent Controller has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and, therefore, interference of this Court by exercising revision jurisdiction is warranted. 13. Learned counsel for the landlord has contended that as per Section 2(j) of the Rent Act only that legal heir shall inherit tenancy who is ordinarily residing with the tenant at the time of death whereas Usha Viz is residing in her in-laws and issue has already been framed with respect to non-joinder of necessary parties, the same shall be decided on the basis of evidence led by the parties and thus at this stage, it cannot be concluded that Usha Viz is a necessary party. 14. 14. Referring Suresh Kumar Kohli’s case, it has been contended by learned counsel for landlord that in any case Usha Viz is not required to be impleaded as party, as her interest is being looked after by other partners of the firm. It has been further contended that partnership firm M/s Super Sanitation represents all partners under the Rent Act and further that partners may be necessary party, but their legal heirs are not necessary party. 15. It has been submitted on behalf of the landlord that petition was filed in the year 2014, whereas Shanti Rani had already expired in the year 2000 and at the time of filing of Rent Petition all surviving partners were arrayed as party as per Section 2(j) of the Rent Act “any person” can be tenant and “person” defined in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act includes partnership firm also, as it provides that “person” shall include any company or organization or body of individual, whether incorporated or not, and thus it has been contended that Eviction Petition against partnership firm without impleadment of legal heirs of deceased partner is maintainable. 16. It has been further contended on behalf of landlord that keeping in view provisions of Order 1 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that objection with respect to impleadment of necessary party shall be raised at the earliest, application of tenants has been rightly dismissed. Lastly, it has been contended that partnership deed has not been placed on record so as to ascertain what will be the effect of death of partner on the partnership. 17. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in Revision Petition legality of order under challenge is to be seen and landlord is not entitled to raise any issue which has not been raised in the reply to the application and further that application has been dismissed without answering the question that whether Usha Viz is necessary party or not and that there is no averments in Eviction Petition with respect to sole proprietorship of Parmod Bamba running business in the premises in reference and, therefore, such plea taken in the reply to the application is not permissible. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that issue involved in present Revision is that whether Rent Controller has failed to exercise his jurisdiction legally as provided under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by referring right of the petitioner as dominus litis. 18. In Rent Act, no procedure has been provided with respect to suing on behalf of or against a partnership firm. Order 30 Rule 1 of CPC contains such procedure which provides that firm can be sued through two or more partners and Rule 4 thereof provides that on death of such partner it shall not be necessary to join his legal representatives as a party to the suit. It also provides that legal representative of such deceased partner shall have right to apply to become a party to the suit or to enforce any claim against survivor or survivors. Order 30 Rules 1 and 4 read as under:- “30.1. Suing of partners in name of firm.--- (1) Any two or more persons claiming or being liable as partners and carrying on business in India may sue or be sued in the name of the firm (if any) of which such persons were partners at the time of the accruing the cause of action, and any party to a suit may in such case apply to the court for a statement of the names and addresses of the persons who were, at the time of the accruing of the cause of action, partners in such firm, to be furnished and verified in such manner as the court may direct. (2) Where persons sue or are sued as partners in the name of their firm under sub-rule (1), it shall, in the case of any pleading or other document required by or under this Code to be signed, verified or certified by the plaintiff or the defendant, suffice if such pleading or other document is signed, verified or certified by any one of such persons. 2. … …. … 3. .. … … 4. 2. … …. … 3. .. … … 4. Rights of suit on death of partner.---(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 45 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872) where two or more persons may sue or be sued in the name of a firm under the foregoing provisions and any of such persons dies, whether before the institution or during the pendency of any suit, it shall not be necessary to join the legal representative of the deceased as a party to the suit. (2) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall limit or otherwise effect any right which the legal representative of the deceased may have- (a) to apply to be made a party to the suit, or (b) to enforce any claim against the survivor or survivors.” 19. In general law, “partnership firm” is not a distinct legal entity, but for definition of “tenant” under Section 2(j) of Rent Act, “any person” shall include partnership firm also, because there is nothing repugnant in the subject or context of the Rent Act to exclude application of definition of “person” provided in Section 3(42) of General Clauses Act. Therefore, Rent Petition, for provision of the Rent Act, read with General Clauses Act, shall be maintainable against a firm, where tenancy has been created in favour of partnership firm, as per procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, because no specific provision has been provided for suing for or against a partnership firm under the Rent Act and as also there is nothing in the Rent Act to exclude application of principle contained in provisions of Order 30 of CPC, impliedly or explicitly for filing and adjudication of application/petition by or against a partnership firm under Rent Act. 20. The Rent deed, as claimed, contains name of five partners. At the time of execution of rent note they were alive. One of them Shanti Rani had expired in the year 2000. In absence of anything contained contrary in the partnership deed, the impact of death of a partner is dissolution of partnership firm, as provided under Section 42 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which reads as under:- “42. At the time of execution of rent note they were alive. One of them Shanti Rani had expired in the year 2000. In absence of anything contained contrary in the partnership deed, the impact of death of a partner is dissolution of partnership firm, as provided under Section 42 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which reads as under:- “42. Dissolution on the happening of certain contingencies:--Subject to contract between the partners a firm is dissolved- (a) if constituted for a fixed term, by the expiry of the term; (b) if constituted to carry out one or more adventures or undertakings, by the completion thereof; (c) by the death of a partner; and (d) by the adjudication of a partner as an insolvent.” 21. The facts emerging from submission made and the material placed before me are that vide rent note dated 21.3.1983 tenancy was created in favour of partnership firm M/s Super Sanitation consisting of partner namely Parmod Bamba, Pushpinder, Paramjit, Rajeev Kumar, all sons of S.L. Bamba and Shanti Rani, wife of S.L. Bamba. Shanti Rani had expired in the year 2000. Eviction Petition was preferred in the year 2014. 22. In present case, at the time of filing of Rent Petition, Shanti Rani had expired, but it is not a case of tenants, partnership firm or its partners that partnership firm on the date of filing of rent petition stood dissolved on account of death of a partner. Respondents/tenants contested the matter on behalf of partnership firm and its respective partners, as reflected in the memo of Rent Petition. Therefore, their stand appears to be that partnership firm continued and is counting after death of Shanti Rani. 23. In case of dissolution of partnership firm, the firm in whose favour tenancy was created, would be non-existent. Natural corollary whereof would be termination of tenancy leaving no right to the surviving partners to continue the possession of the premises in question under tenancy and making liable them to be evicted for want of existence of partnership firm having right to continue in possession as tenant. 24. A person claiming right as a legal representative of deceased partner Shanti Rani, has to establish his/her induction as a partner after death of Shanti Rani in partnership firm. 24. A person claiming right as a legal representative of deceased partner Shanti Rani, has to establish his/her induction as a partner after death of Shanti Rani in partnership firm. In absence of which legal heir of Shanti Rani cannot claim induction as a partner in partnership firm by way of inheritance because there is no such provision in the Indian Partnership Act, rather there is provision of dissolution of partnership firm on death of a partner. Tenants have failed to place on record partnership deed or terms thereof, particularly related to impact of death of partner upon status of partnership firm as well as with respect to rights of legal heirs of deceased partner. There is nothing on record to show that as to whether after death of Shanti Rani, partnership firm continues or dissolved and if continues, whether such continuation was with surviving partners or induction of legal representatives of deceased partner as partner with surviving partners. In absence of such material, in view of provisions of the Partnership Act contained in Section 42(c), there shall be dissolution of partnership. 25. No material has been placed on record to show that partnership firm was continued and is continuing after death of Shanti Rani and further that whether there was any provision for induction of legal representatives/heirs of deceased partner as partner in the firm on death of partner. In absence of such expressed provision in the partnership deed, legal heirs of deceased partner are not entitled to be inducted as partner and for that reason they are not entitled to inherit right flowing from partnership deed being a partner. There is no material on record to show that Usha Viz was having any interest, right and title in the premises in reference as a partner or as a tenant. In absence of such relevant material it has to be construed that Usha Viz was having no right, title or interest to inherit the partnership of deceased Shanti Rani in the partnership firm M/s Super Sanitation. 26. Eviction petition is for eviction of tenant. Tenant is a partnership firm. Partners are not tenants in their individual capacity. They are tenants as partners of the firm. Inheritance of tenancy of a partnership firm under the Hindu Succession Act on account of death of a partner will not be in operation. 26. Eviction petition is for eviction of tenant. Tenant is a partnership firm. Partners are not tenants in their individual capacity. They are tenants as partners of the firm. Inheritance of tenancy of a partnership firm under the Hindu Succession Act on account of death of a partner will not be in operation. Legal heirs shall be entitled to inherit the rights of partners, but not the tenancy which has been created in favour of partnership firm. 27. It is also a matter of record that four sons of Shanti Rani are also her legal heirs alongwith Usha Viz. All four sons are party to the Rent Petition and, therefore, eviction decree against the partnership firm, wherein legal heirs of Shanti Rani may have right, shall be binding on all legal representatives and shall be enforceable against all of them including Usha Viz because other legal heirs/representatives of Shanti Rani are already on record to represent the estate of Usha Viz. 28. Ratio of law laid down in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal and S.K. Saldi’ cases are not in dispute, however, in the facts and circumstances of present case, they are not applicable because applicants/tenants have failed to establish right or interest of Usha Viz in the premises in reference rented out to the partnership firm M/s Super Sanitation, as there is nothing on record to establish her induction as a partner in the partnership firm or her right in the business of partnership firm or in the premises in reference in any capacity and thus, she is not a necessary or formal party to be impleaded and her absence in the present lis does not have any impact and thus her impleadment is not necessary for final and complete adjudication of the matter. 29. Plea raised on behalf of tenant(s) that the partners are ‘Tenant in Common, but not ‘Joint Tenants’, is also not sustainable for the reasons that it is admitted fact that tenancy was created in favour of partnership firm M/s Super Sanitation and there is nothing on record to indicate and establish that separate portion of tenanted premises were rented out or allotted to the partners of the firm, rather partnership firm constitutes a single unit and the partners are not running their business in the premises in reference by dividing the same independent to each other. The partners do not have any right, title or interest in respect of assets and properties of a firm, so long as a firm is carrying on business and they are not tenant in their individual capacity but as partners, hence legal heirs of a partner cannot maintain any claim in respect of assets and properties of the said firm, because even the partners cannot claim their individual right on the assets and properties of the firm. Premises rented to the partnership firm shall be governed by the same principle and the partners in their individual capacity cannot claim any individual right therein, much less their legal representatives/legal heirs. Therefore, Uha Viz has no right to be impleaded as a party in the Eviction Petition in reference. 30. Usha Viz is not a tenant and, therefore, she is neither tenant in common nor joint tenant, as she is not a partner, as such, she is not entitled to represent the firm as a partner. Usha Viz is not claiming right as a partner, but as a legal heir of a deceased partner which does not entitle her to become party in Eviction Petition. Unless she is inducted as a partner, for the provision in Partnership Deed, she is not entitled to represent the firm and, therefore, she is not even a formal party, much less necessary party. 31. It is claim in the application that Usha Viz has been running business in the premises in reference alongwith Shanti Rani, partner, therefore, natural inference is that she was well aware of affairs of partnership firm, particularly with respect to premises rented to the firm including filing of Eviction Petition but she has not come forward for her impleadment as a party. Even present application has been preferred by partners, who are already impleaded and thus it can be safely said that it is a case of implied surrender of rights by Usha Viz with respect to her interest, if any, in the premises in reference. 32. It is nobody’s case that heirs/legal representatives of deceased partner joind the firm or they were entitled to be taken as partner in place of deceased partner in the firm. Therefore, Eviction Petition, in reference, is maintainable in absence of legal heirs/legal representatives of deceased partner. 32. It is nobody’s case that heirs/legal representatives of deceased partner joind the firm or they were entitled to be taken as partner in place of deceased partner in the firm. Therefore, Eviction Petition, in reference, is maintainable in absence of legal heirs/legal representatives of deceased partner. Such legal heirs/legal representatives are not required to be arrayed as party in a petition filed against the partnership firm. 33. In view of above discussion, I am of considered opinion that Rent Controller has not failed to exercise jurisdiction under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and, therefore, I do not find any merit in the Revision Petition. 34. Accordingly the Revision Petition is dismissed alongwith pending application(s), if any.