Back
J.JAGANNADHA RAO, S.B.MAJMUDAR
Raptakos Brett And Company LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Ganesh Property – Respondent
What is the effect of non-registration of a partnership firm on a suit filed to enforce a right arising from a contract? What is the effect of subsequent registration of a partnership firm on a suit that was initially barred due to non-registration? What is the basis of a landlord's claim for possession against an erstwhile tenant after the expiry of the lease?
Key Points: - A suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm to enforce a right arising from a contract is partly barred under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act if it is based on contractual obligations (!) (!) (!) (!) . - A suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm can be partly not barred if a part of the cause of action is based on statutory rights under the Transfer of Property Act, such as the right to possession after lease determination (!) . - The decree for possession, if based on both contractual and statutory causes of action, remains well-sustained on the statutory part even if the contractual part is barred (!) (!) . - The erstwhile tenant, after the expiry of the lease, is considered a tenant at sufferance, akin to a trespasser, with no independent right to continue possession (!) (!) (!) . - The landlord's right to possession after lease determination can be enforced based on the statutory obligation of the erstwhile tenant under Section 108(q) read with Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act (!) (!) . - The claim for possession based on statutory obligations under the Transfer of Property Act is distinct from enforcing rights arising from the expired contract of tenancy (!) . - The question of whether subsequent registration of a partnership firm can revive a suit that was initially barred was left undecided as the decree was sustained on other grounds (!) (!) . - The suit was filed by an unregistered partnership firm, M/s. Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd., against Ganesh Property (!) (!) . - The lease agreement was for a period of 21 years, ending on March 15, 1985 (!) . - The decree for possession passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court was upheld (!) (!) .
Judgment
S.B. Majmudar, J.—Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties finally in this appeal. Hence, this appeal is being disposed of by this judgment.
3. This appeal by special leave seeks to challenge the decision rendered by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta confirming decree for possession passed against the appellant-defendant by the learned Judge, 7th Court of City Civil at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1481 of 1986. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant-defendant, it is necessary to note a few relevant background facts.
Factual Matrix:
4. The respondent-plaintiff is the owner of suit premises consisting of ground floor of a building situated at Marquis Street, Calcutta. The said premises were rented to the appellant-defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 2045/- by a registered lease dated 16th March, 1964. This lease was for a period of 21 years commencing from 16th March, 1964 and ending on 15th March, 1985. On the expiry of the said period, the respondent-plaintiff alleging to be a registered partnership firm, filed the aforesaid suit praying for a decree for possession as well as damages @ Rs. 200/- per day for il
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
