1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 70 OF 2008 Chiman s/o. Bhau Chidrawar, R/o. Jintur, Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani. ....Applicant. Versus Shantilal Hiralal Ahchha, R/o. Prabhawatinagar, Parbhani and others ....Respondents. Shri. H.A. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. Shri. M.R. Challani, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 3rd November, 2009 ORAL ORDER : 1. This civil revision application challenges the judgment and order dated 15.12.2007 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Parbhani, dismissing the Rent Appeal No. 05/2006 filed by the present applicant and confirming the judgment and decree dated 23rd of December 2005 passed by the learned Rent Controller, District Parbhani on file No. 1987/RC/0/11 and passing a decree against the defendant for 2 delivery of the suit premises bearing Municipal House No. 515 (Old No. 67) situated at Jintur proper, Tal. Jintur, District Parbhani. 2. Both the Courts have recorded the findings on facts that the respondent/landlord has established his bon afide requirement. Shri. H.T. Joshi holding for Shri. A.R. Mohane, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant has urged that the premises in question was let out to M/s. Deepak Vastra Bhandar, Jintur, which is a partnership firm and the said firm was a necessary party to the proceedings and the proceedings were liable to be dismissed for non joinder of the necessary parties. 3. The Trial Court has framed issue Nos. 5 and 6 as under :- "5. Does non-applicant prove that suit premises is given to M/s. Deepak Vastra Bhandar ? 6. Whether Deepak Vastra Bhandar is a necessary party ?" Issue No. 5 is answered in negative. It has been held that this aspect has been discussed on page No. 13 of the judgment of the Trial Court and it has been held that M/s. Deepak Vastra Bhandar is not a necessary party. The Appellate Court has also considered this aspect in para 9 of its judgment. Apart from the fact that both the Courts have concurrently held that M/s. Deepak Vastra Bhandar was not the tenant, there is nothing on record to show that M/s.Deepak Vastra Bhandar was registered partnership firm and hence, bar under section 69 (2) of the 3 Partnership Act is not at all attracted. 4. In view of above, I do not find any substance in the present civil revision application and the same is, therefore, dismissed. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/cra70.08