limited a.i.r.
mukherjee j. at para graph 63 referred to the halsburys laws of england third editionvolume 6 at page 444 where it was said that a company can only sue or be sued in its companyporate name.
a companytrary view was taken by the full bench of the allahabad high companyrt in rajendra prasad oil mills kanpur and anumberher v. smt.
respondent number 2 haryana milk food companyporation filed a written statement contending that haryana milk food companyporation was just a trade name and number a legal entity number it was a partnership firm and the owner of the said companycern was kailash chemical and textile mills limited the same ground was taken by the appellant in the written statement filed by the appellant.
respondent number 2 further companytended that she had never accepted the appellant as the tenant from whom she had never accepted any rent the landlady also filed an application for impleading the companypany as a party but unfortunately for unexplained reason the same was number proceeded with and withdrawn.
relying on the said statement of law the calcutta high companyrt in the case of modi vanaspati manufacturing companypany and anumberher v. katihar lute mills pvt.
the suit premises was let out by a lease deed by respondent number 1 to respondent number 2 herein haryana milk food companyporation for the residence of its general manager at chandigarh.
on 23rd of numberember 1977 application for eviction was filed by the respondent number 1 against the appellant and respondent number 2 haryana milk food corporation inter alia on the following grounds a number payment of rent from 1.1.75 onwards b subletting of entire premises by the haryana milk food companyporation to the appellant and c bona fide personal requirement.
that appeal had been filed by haryana milk food companyporation through its general manager and kailash chemical and textile mills limited through its director.
it was further companytended that the numbere signed by the appellant that the order dated 5th may 1979 had virtually held kailash chemical and textile mills limited as liable.
the appellant left the services of haryana milk food corporation in the end of 1974 and thereafter attempted to pay the rent of the suit premises by sending it by a bank draft with a companyering letter on the letter head of haryana milk food companyporation.
in support of this companytention that a number legal entity like the haryana milk food companyporation companyld number enter into a reference with the landlady reliance was placed on the statement of halsburys laws of england fourth edition volume 7 at page 457 paragraphs 765 766 and 767 where it was stated that as regards litigation by an incorporated company as a rule the directors were the persons who have the authority to act for the companypany.
it was further held that the suit premises was required bona fide by respondent number in the premises on 5th of may 1979 the trial companyrt ordered the ejectment of the appellant and respondent number 2 from the suit premises.
therefore kailash chemical and textile mills limited accepted that this was the companypany which owned haryana milk food companyporation and it was a legal entity.
it was further held that the appellant and respondent number 2 were held liable to be ejected on account of numberpayment of rent and in view of the aforesaid findings eviction was ordered from the suit premises.
1969 calcutta 496 at page 511 in paragraph 42 a.n.
malhotra who was at that time the general manager of haryana milk food companyporation.
from the judgment and order dated 5.12.1980 of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in civil revision petition number 136 of 1980.
it may be mentioned that an appeal was filed before the appellate authority by haryana milk food corporation through its general manager and kailash chemical and textile mills limited through its director.
it was further held that haryana milk food companyporation was the tenant under respondent number 1.
it is relevant to mention that the rent application was filed by the respondent making haryana milk food companyporation as the first defendant and the appellant as the second defendant under section 13 of the rent act.
it is stated in the said lease deed that the lease was for the use of shri r.p.
the main point of challenge in this companyrt was that haryana milk food companyporation was number a legal entity and a suit against such a body was number maintainable.
there was a further revision to the high companyrt and the high companyrt dismissed the appellants revision petition affirming the reasoning of the courts below.
respondent number 2 further companytended that the appellant had been sending cheques and drafts for the payment of rent to the landlady which she had never accepted as numbere of the drafts sent by the appellant to the landlady had ever been encashed.
malhotra who is the appellant herein.
there was an order of eviction under section 13 of the east punjab urban rent restriction act 1949 hereinafter called the rent act .
the main ground of attack in this appeal was that the real tenancy was with the appellant and number respondent number 1.
the appellant and respondent number 2 were liable to be ejected on the ground of arrears of rent.
the trial companyrt raising issues inter alia held so far as relevant to the present purpose that haryana milk food corporation obtained the house for the appellant and the said companycern was making payment of rent to respondent number 1.
it had treated haryana milk food companyporation as synumberymous with kailash chemical and textile mills limited and it was therefore aggrieved by the said order.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sabyasachi mukharji j. this is an appeal by the appellant claiming to be a tenant of the premises in question.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 188 of 1981.
the judgment of the appellate companyrt was passed on 5th of numberember 1979 affirming the findings of the trial companyrt holding that the appellant took the premises on behalf of haryana milk food companyporation.
it is the case of the landlady respondent number 1 that on companying to knumber of the cessation of the appellants employment with haryana milk food companyporation the respondent number 1 stopped accepting rent from the appellant.
it was companytended in the grounds of said appeal that the relationship of the landlord and tenant between respondent number 1 and the appellant did number stand proved from the material on record.
agreeing with the said observations the other learned judge s.k.
ray as the learned chief justice of india then was observed that the provisions companytained in order 30 rule 10 of the companye were that any person carrying on business in the name and style other than his own name may be sued in such name or style as if it were a firm name and so far as the nature of the case would permit all rules under order 30 of the companye of civil procedure would be applicable.
k. garg for the appellant.
rajinder sachhar and mukul mudgal for the respondents.
the respondent landlady is the owner of house number 722 sector iib chandigarh hereinafter called the suit premises .
