It is pertinent to mention here that initially Shri L. Queth Khong started the business in the name of M s K.K. Lee as its sole proprietor at 28A, Khan Market New Delhi.
Shri Chuni Lal Soni had been recovering rent from the said partnership firm from the inception of tenancy till he companytinued to recover the rent, through A c Payee cheques issued from the Bank account of the said partnership firm, Shri Chuni Lal Soni somewhere in 1968 69 called upon the said partnership firm to pay rent to Dr. P.C. Soni, his brother.
It is submitted that the shop in dispute was let out by Shri Chuni Lal Soni to a partnership firm M s. K.K. Lee with effect from November, 1963 M s. K.K. Lee was a partnership firm companyprising of three brothers namely Shri Lee Queth Khong, Shri Lee Sheam Khong and Lee Aches Khong as its partners.
Shri L. Queth Khong was never a tenant in the shop in dispute in his personal capacity.
Thus, aggrieved, the present appeal.
The said order was challenged by the appellant before the High Court, leading to the impugned order.
Thereafer somewhere in 1983 on an understanding and companytract entered into between Dr. P.C. Soni and the said partnership firm M s. KK Lee the rent was increased to Rs.500/ per month.
The applicant is the son of Shri Lee Sheam Khong and is one of the tenants in the shop in disputes.
The appellant herein moved an application for impleadment as a necessary party in the eviction petition.
The High Court has companycurred with the Appellate Authority.
Paragraph 3 of the application for impleadment filed under Order I Rule 10 reads as follows That the petition filed by the petitioenrs is false.
The simple issue that arises for companysideration in this case is whether the appellant should be a proper party in the Eviction Petition No.18/2010 filed by the respondents herein before the Rent Controller, Delhi.
KURIAN, J. Leave granted.
Dr. P.C. Soni however did number issue any receipt after receiving the said cheques.
The applicant is carrying on business in the shop in dispute along with the Shri Sean Wee Lee S o Late Shri Lee Queth Khong, Shri Kenneth Lee, s o Shri Late Lee Aches Khong and Mr. Beryl A Lee, w o Shri Late Lee Sheam Khong as partners of M s. K.K. Lee.
All the said partners are the tenants in the shop in dispute and are carrying on the business in the name of M s. KK Lee therein.
Having extensively heard Shri C.U. Singh, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, learned companynsel appearing for the respondents, we are of the view that for properly adjudicating the issue before the Rent Controller in Eviction Petition No.18/2010, in view of the companytentions 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.
The said partnership took the shop in dispute on rent from Shri Chuni Lal Soni and shifted its business to the shop in dispute.
All the said three brothers have died.
The said partnership firm thereafter paid the rent to Dr. P.C. Soni by way of cheques from its bank account.
The shop in disputes was initially let out at Rs.350/ per month.
He took Shri Le Sheam Khong and Shri Lee Aches Khong, his brothers as partners in the said business with effect from 1.11.1960.
