1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 395 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2976 OF 2001 (M/s. Radhavallabh Ramswaroop Heda thr. Partner and LRs of Partners vs. Subhash B. Bhattad & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & F.M. REIS, JJ. APRIL 15, 2009. Heard Shri Chaudhari, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri De, learned counsel for respondent No.2. The appellant has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge reversing the order of the appellate Authority i.e. the Additional Collector dated 7.4.2001 and restored the order passed by the Rent Controller dated 30.11.2000. The respondent applied for permission to terminate the tenancy of the appellant under Clauses 13(3)(v) & (vi) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949. The Rent Controller after appreciating evidence, came to the conclusion that the partners of the appellant firm carry on 2 business in alternate premises and have therefore secured alternate accommodation. The appellate authority, however, reversed that finding by taking the view that the premises owned by the partners do not constitute alternate accommodation because those are not owned or occupied by the appellant firm. The appellate authority observed that the premises are owned by members of the firm personally and are being used by them “for other purposes”, without specifying the purpose. In Writ Petition filed by the respondent – landlord, the learned Single Judge reversed the order of the appellate Court observing as follows : “I fail to understand as to how the Appellate Authority could have upset the finding given by the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller had recorded the finding that the petitioners had acquired three storied building in front of the suit premises in which they were carrying on the business. This being the position, the landlords had proved that the tenants had secured alternate 3 accommodation and, therefore, the landlords were entitled to relief under Clauses 13(3)(v) of the Order.” Shri Chaudhari, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge ought not to have held that the premises were alternate accommodation because they are owned by the partners of the appellant firm and not by the firm. This contention ignores the settled position in law that 'firm' is merely a compendious name for all its partners. Thus where a firm is carrying on business and its partners secure alternate accommodation for carrying on business, such premises are to be treated as alternate accommodation. In the circumstances of the case, there was no reason why the alternate premises secured by the partners of the appellant firm, apparently for business purposes, ought not to be treated as alternate accommodation secured by the firm for business purposes. Clause 13(3)(v) of Rent Control Order reads as follows : “that the tenant has secured alternate accommodation or has left the area for a continuous period of 4 four months and does not reasonable need the premises.” The term 'tenant' will have to be read as referring to the individual partners who constitute the firm which is the tenant. Therefore, if individual partners have secured accommodation for business purposes, the learned Single Judge cannot be said to have committed any error in holding that the tenant has secured alternate accommodation. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.