Case: Rashpal Malhotra Vs. Mrs. Satya Rajput and Another

fact was known to the party suing. There, the Court observed that there could not be any controversy that Rajendra Prasad oil Mills, Kanpur was an undertaking owned by N.K. Industries limited. Satish Chandra J. as the learned Chief J ustice then was, observed that in certain circumstances a limited company carrying on business in an assumed name by concealment of its own corporate name is a person within meaning of order 30 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Same is the view of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of M/s. M.K.M. Moosa Bhai Amin, Kota v. Rajasthan Textile Mills, Bhawanimandi, A.I.R. 1974 Rajasthan 194 where it was held that where a limited company carried on a business in an assumed name and a suit came to be filed against the defendant in that name in respect of price due on sale of goods in view of section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 the expression person as used in the Code of Civil Procedure order 30 Rule 10 in the suit filed ag ainst the defendant in the name assumed by the limited company was tenable under order 30 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Kerala High Court, however, in the case of Educational Supplies Depot, Trivandrum v. Vithoba High School and others, [1970] Kerala Law Journal Reports 43 held that a decree could not be passed against a school as it was not a juristic entity much less a person to hold property. It may be mentioned that subsequently the Kailash Chemical and Textile Mills Ltd. h as changed its name to the Haryana Milk Food Corporation and they have merged formerly, but that is subsequent to the lease and the institution of the suit. It is manifest from the position that parties knew that Kailash Chemical and Textile Mills Ltd. was the owner of the Haryana Milk Food Corporation. Kailash Chemical and Textile Mills Ltd., accepted that position as it would be apparent from the grounds filed before the Appellate Authority. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant, however, tried to emphasise that in view of the definition of tenant under section 2(i) of the Rent Act the right of eviction under section 13 in the suit as framed was not maintainable.It has been held by all the Courts that the parties knew who were the tenants, it is apparent that the appellant was not the tenant. It was held by the Rent Controller that one of the grounds for eviction was bona fide need of the landlord. The Appellate Authority and the High Court did not go into this question. The parties were aware that the Kailash Chemical and Textile Mills Ltd., was the real owner of the Haryana Milk Food Corporation. Neither Haryana Milk Food Corporation nor Kailash Chemical and Textile Mills was prejudiced by holding that the lessee was not the appellant and they have not been prejudiced by not being made formal parties. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are inclined not to interfere with the order of eviction. 4. It has to be borne in min d that this is an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. This Court in Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. Ranchi v. K. Singh and Company, Ranchi, A.I.R. 1977 Supreme Court 2031 expressed the opinion that although the powers of this Court were wide under Article 136 it could not be urged that because leave had been granted the Court must always in every case deal with the merits even though it was satisfied that the ends of justice did not justify its interference in a given ca se. It is not as if, in an appeal with leave under Article 136, this Court was bound to decide the question if on facts at the later hearing the Court felt that the ends of justice did not make it necessary to decide the point. Similarly in Baigana and others v. Deputy Collector of Consolidation and others, [ 1978] 3 S.C.R. 509 this Court expressed the view that this Court was more than a Court of appeal. It exercises power only when there is supreme need. It is not the fifth court o f appeal but the final court of the nation. Therefore, even if legal flaws might be electronically detected, we cannot interfere save manifest injustice or substantial question of public importance. In this case it is apparent from the facts placed before us and the High Court and the courts below that there is a genuine need of the landlady for the premises in question. It has been established clearly that the tenancy agreement was not with the appellant and the lease was signed by the appellant on behalf of other entity though not strictly legal but it was entered by a legal entitly, namely Kailash Chemical and Textile Mills Ltd. It has been held that no deposit had been made in accordance with law by three Courts. Merely because in the form of the lease Kailash Chemical and Textile Mills Ltd., was not mentioned and as such was not made a party to the suit and the lease was purported to be entered with an entity which is not a juristic person and a suit was filed against such non-juristic person, this Court should not interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Appellate Authority and the High Court. It has to be borne in mind that this Court in exercising its power under Article 136 of the Constitution acts not only as a court of law but also as a court of equity and must subserve ultimately the cause of justice. In this case, there is evidence that there is some bona fide need of the landlady for her family. After a long la pse of time, in the facts and the circumstances of this case we decline to interfere with the findings arrived at by the High Court and the Courts below.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]It was contended in the grounds of said appeal, that the relationship of the landlord and tenant between respondent No. 1 and the appellant did not stand proved from the material on record. It was further contended that the note signed by the appellant that the order dated 5th May, 1979 had virtually held Kailash Chemical and Textile Mills Ltd., as liable. It had treated Haryana Milk Food Corporation as synonymous with Kailash Chemical and Textile Mills Ltd., and it was, therefore, aggrieved by the said order. That appeal had been filed by Haryana Milk Food Corporation through its General Manager and Kai lash Chemical and Textile Mills Ltd., through its Director. Therefore, Kailash Chemical and Textile Mills Ltd., accepted that this was the company which owned Haryana Milk Food Corporation and it was a legal entityIt has been established clearly that the tenancy agreement was not with the appellant and the lease was signed by the appellant on behalf of other entity though not strictly legal but it was entered by a legal entitly, namely Kailash Chemical and Textile Mills Ltd. It has been held that no deposit had been made in accordance with law by three Courts. Merely because in the form of the lease Kailash Chemical and Textile Mills Ltd., was not mentioned and as such was not made a party to the suit and the lease was purported to be entered with an entity which is not a juristic person and a suit was filed against such non-juristic person, this Court should not interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Appellate Authority and the High Court. It has to be borne in mind that this Court in exercising its power under Article 136 of the Constitution acts not only as a court of law but also as a court of equity and must subserve ultimately the cause of justice. In this case, there is evidence that there is some bona fide need of the landlady for her family. After a long la pse of time, in the facts and the circumstances of this case we decline to interfere with the findings arrived at by the High Court and the Courts below.