ORDER : A.Muhamed Mustaque, J. These two revision petitions are directed against the very same order. The only distinguishing feature is that one of them—R.C.R. No. 148 of 2025—has been filed by a person who was not a party to the original rent control proceedings. The maintainability of a revision petition filed by such a non-party is, therefore, also an issue for consideration. Both revisions challenge the concurrent findings of eviction recorded under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rent Control Act”). The authorities below have concurrently found that the need pleaded in the landlord’s eviction petition is genuine and bona fide. 2. Lengthy arguments have been raised at the bar on the side of the tenant, mainly focusing on the point that non-impleadment of partners of the tenant-firm is fatal to the petition for eviction. It was also argued that the landlord was originally a firm, and without a surrender to the landlord by the then-tenant, the landlord cannot institute a rent control petition. The issues of the case are discernible from the facts themselves. 3. The tenanted premises originally belonged to M/s. Maruthi Enterprises in 1991, while executing the initial lease agreement. The initial lease agreement was executed between the managing partners of the landlord and the tenant firm. Subsequently, the lease was renewed, and, ultimately, the latest lease deed was executed by the co-owners of the premises in favour of the managing partner of the tenant firm, Mr. Joseph K. Thomas. There is no dispute regarding these facts. The question as to whether there was a surrender of the previous tenancy does not assume much significance, for the tenant cannot dispute its own deed, whereby it has expressly acknowledged the present landlord. In the limited context of the Rent Control Act, the Rent Controller is only required to examine whether a landlord– tenant relationship exists. Once the tenant has admitted the present relationship with the landlord, the Rent Control Court cannot go beyond that admission to enquire into whether there was any dissolution or alteration of the earlier partnership. The tenant is estopped from raising any further contention in regard to such a relationship when bound by the written lease deed recognising the landlord’s status. 4. The second question is in regard to non-impleadment of other partners of the tenant firm. Admittedly, Mr. The tenant is estopped from raising any further contention in regard to such a relationship when bound by the written lease deed recognising the landlord’s status. 4. The second question is in regard to non-impleadment of other partners of the tenant firm. Admittedly, Mr. Joseph K. Thomas entered into an agreement on behalf of the partnership firm, namely, M/s Hotel Amritha. The landlord has no case that the building was given on an individual lease to Mr. Joseph K. Thomas. There are two legal arguments being raised. One is the absence of the name of the firm in the party array, and the second, the absence of the individual partners of the firm in the party array. The second objection has been particularly raised in the context of the second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act, where the law accords protection to the tenant from the eviction sought under Section 11 (3) if the tenant depends upon the building for livelihood and no alternative building is available in the locality. We will have to answer these questions raised. 5. The eviction petition is not laid against the firm, but laid against Joseph K. Thomas. It is also mentioned that he is the managing partner of Hotel Amritha. The deed was executed between the present landlord and Joseph K. Thomas, representing Hotel Amritha. 6. There cannot be a dispute about the fact that the firm is represented by Joseph K. Thomas. A partnership firm is a compendious name for its partners. It cannot act on its own except through its partners, who formed the firm. The partnership firm is not a distinct legal personality separate from its partners, like a company. The partners are jointly and severally liable. The definition of the term ‘tenant’ is found in the Rent Control Act, where Section 2 (6) defines a tenant as a person by whom or on whose account rent is payable. Therefore, the tenant has to be understood in relation to the landlord to whom such a person is responsible for paying the rent. Thus, a person who is representing the firm is the tenant in the light of the statutory definition of tenant in the above Act. In such a view of the matter, the firm is not a necessary party to the proceedings. Of course, the firm can also be made a party to the proceedings. Thus, a person who is representing the firm is the tenant in the light of the statutory definition of tenant in the above Act. In such a view of the matter, the firm is not a necessary party to the proceedings. Of course, the firm can also be made a party to the proceedings. Apex Court in M/s. Chhotelal Pyarelal, The Partnership Firm and Others v. Shikharchand [1984 KHC 815] held that no application for eviction can be maintained against a firm, in the firm’s name, as the Civil Procedure Code does not apply to the rent control proceedings. 7. A Division Bench of this Court in Lieya v. Kaliappa Chettiar Sons [1995 KHC 389] had taken the view that an eviction petition against a partnership firm is maintainable after referring to Chotelal Pyarelal (supra), wherein it is also held that an eviction petition can be filed without making individual partners as parties to the proceedings. 8. There is no mandate under law that the firm should be made a party if the firm is a tenant. As we observed earlier, if the firm is represented by the managing partner, and the managing partner is individually made as a person representing the firm, that is sufficient under law inasmuch as he represents the interest of the firm and other individual partners of the firm unless procedure under the Rent Control Act insists otherwise. It is to be noted that the procedural rule under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as referred under Order XXX, cannot be strictly applied in the rent control proceedings. In rent control petitions, the only point that can be considered is whether the person impleaded has an obligation to pay the rent to the landlord. If that is answered, the first issue concludes, and further probe in regard to non-impleadment is not necessary. 9. We shall now refer to various judgments to point out that impleadment of all the partners is not necessary in the rent control proceedings. 9.1. A learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sama Venkata Subba Rao, Managing Partner, Babu & Co., Machilipatnam v. P. Venkata Venugopala Jagannadha Rao [1995 SCC OnLine AP 184] has held as follows: “8. 9.1. A learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sama Venkata Subba Rao, Managing Partner, Babu & Co., Machilipatnam v. P. Venkata Venugopala Jagannadha Rao [1995 SCC OnLine AP 184] has held as follows: “8. Apart from this, the decision of Supreme Court in 3 supra does not help the petitioner since in the present case, eviction petition is filed against one of the partners of the firm and not against firm as such as in the Supreme Court case. As per Section 4 of partnership Act, any partner while carrying on business of the firm acts as an agent of other partners. Thus, even assuming that the tenant is firm, eviction petition filed against one of the partners is maintainable as in the eye of law he represents all the partners. Accordingly I reject the second contention.” The above view was followed by a Single Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Shivraj Sanghi v. Keshav Deo Dalmia, [2013 SCC OnLine AP 210] 9.2. In Suraj Narain Gupta v. Rati Chaturvedi [2019 KHC 3465] , a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court held as follows: “39… A partnership Firm could be arrayed through one of its Directors. In this case Mr. Suraj Narayan Gupta was admittedly the Director of the partnership Firm. The other members of the Firm were his sons, daughters and other relatives. The fact of Moti Mahal Talkies being owned by Ganga Tarang Pictures Private Limited company was stated for the first time by the defendant in his oral statement. The learned Trial Court rightly found that being Director of Moti Mahal Talkies and the property in dispute being one where the Generator and Electricity meter of Moti Mahal Talkies was housed, the suit did not suffer from nonjoinder or misjoinder of parties.” 9.3. The Apex Court in Richard Lee v. Girish Soni [(2017) 3 SCC 194] has reiterated that partners of a partnership firm are not necessary parties to rent control proceedings as follows: “6. The Apex Court in Richard Lee v. Girish Soni [(2017) 3 SCC 194] has reiterated that partners of a partnership firm are not necessary parties to rent control proceedings as follows: “6. Having extensively heard Shri C.U. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr Sanjeev Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, we are of the view that for properly adjudicating the issue before the Rent Controller in Eviction Petition No. 18 of 2010, in view of the contentions taken by the parties, both the firm in the name and style of K.K. Lee and all its partners should be on the array of parties as proper party. No doubt, they are not necessary parties from the point of view of the eviction petitioners, but the Court has a duty to see whether the presence of the proper parties would facilitate the complete determination of the matter in dispute. ...” 9.4. In Vijayakumar and Another v. Ranjan and Another [ 2006 KHC 1696], a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court held as follows: “17. I am unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. Insofar as the rent control proceedings are concerned, it is only between the landlords and the tenant, the 1st respondent herein, as they are alone signatories to the lease agreements in their individual capacity. In a case filed under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, parties are to be added in the complaint having regard to the signatories in the instrument that too, after finding out whether they signed the instrument in their individual capacity or not. Therefore it can never be said that in the rent control proceedings also, the firm and all it’s partners should be added as parties as they were already shown as parties in the cheque bouncing case. The rent control Appellate Authority seems to have accepted this contention raised by the 1st respondent herein and to that extent those findings are vitiated and are liable to be set aside.” 10. The non-impleadment of other partners also assumes relevance in consideration of the issue in the context of the second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Rent Control Act, which affords protection to the tenant. However, non-impleadment is distinct from the right to claim such protection. The non-impleadment of other partners also assumes relevance in consideration of the issue in the context of the second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Rent Control Act, which affords protection to the tenant. However, non-impleadment is distinct from the right to claim such protection. There is no legal bar preventing non-impleaded partners of a partnership firm from seeking the benefit of the second proviso, and such a partner could have adduced evidence in support of the claim. It is well settled that every partner is deemed to be the agent of the other partners; accordingly, the managing partner represents the interests of all partners and is competent to raise a claim for protection on their behalf. Non- impleadment, therefore, does not by itself extinguish the right of other partners to such protection. If the managing partner failed to raise a claim that could have been made on behalf of the other partners, such omission cannot operate to the prejudice of the landlord, with whom a distinct and independent relationship has been established. Matters arising purely out of the internal partnership arrangement bind only the partners inter se, and cannot affect the rights of a third party with whom a separate and independent relationship exists. 11. In view of the legal position as above, it is not necessary to implead all the partners. In the absence of any claim and proof under the second proviso to Section 11 (3) made either by the managing partner or by the other partners, this issue does not arise for consideration in the present revision. 12. A feeble attempt has been made to discredit the findings of fact entered by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority under section 11(3), upholding the bona fide need of the landlord. However, we cannot re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at contrary findings of fact entered by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. 13. In regard to the maintainability of R.C.R. No. 148/2025, Section 20 of the Rent Control Act is the provision related to revision. It refers to an application filed by an aggrieved party. Admittedly, R.C.R. No. 148/2025 was filed by one of the partners. Though he is not a party to the rent control proceedings, the revision petition is maintainable at the instance of another partner of the firm, as he is also aggrieved. 14. It refers to an application filed by an aggrieved party. Admittedly, R.C.R. No. 148/2025 was filed by one of the partners. Though he is not a party to the rent control proceedings, the revision petition is maintainable at the instance of another partner of the firm, as he is also aggrieved. 14. But in light of the order impugned in R.C.R. No. 130/2025 filed by the managing partner, R.C.R. No. 148/2025 also has to be dismissed, as the issue in regard to the legality of order impugned being one and same in both cases. Accordingly, the revision petitions are dismissed. However, we grant the tenant three months’ time to surrender vacant possession of the petition-scheduled shop room to the landlord, subject to the following conditions: (i) The tenant shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within two weeks from today, expressing an unconditional undertaking that he will surrender vacant possession of the petition-scheduled shop room to the landlord on or before 19.11.2025 and that, the tenant shall not induct third parties into possession of the petition-scheduled shop room. (ii) The tenant shall deposit the entire arrears of rent as on date, if any, before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and shall continue to pay rent for every succeeding month, without any default; (iii) Needless to say, failing to comply with any one of the conditions stated above, the time limit granted by this order to surrender vacant possession of the petition- scheduled shop room will stand cancelled automatically, and the landlord will be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the order of eviction.