A.N. GROVER, J.

(1) THE only point for determination in this appeal by special leave is whether the present suit for eviction under the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter called the "Act", was barred byvirtue of the provisions of S. 69(3) of the Indian Partnership Act owing to the non-registration of the firm of which the four appellants are the partners.

(2) THE appellants purchased a property bearing No. 164 Broadway, Madras. The sale deed was executed in favour of the first and second appellants who are brothers and the third and fourth appellants who are their sisters. They filed an application before the Rent Controller at Madras under S. 10 of the Act against the respondent and another on the ground that the premises were required bona fide for their own use, occupation and business and that the tenant had sub-let a portion of the premises. The application for eviction was filed by all the four appellants who were stated to be carrying on business under the name and style of Saleh Bros. The tenant filed a written statement raising various pleas but it was no where alleged or stated that any contract of tenancy had been entered into by the partnership of which the four appellants were the partners.

(3) BEFORE the Rent Controller the only issues raised were: whether the landlords bona fide required the premises for their own use and occupation and whether there had been any sub-letting by the tenant. The Rent Controller found against the appellants on the question of sub-letting but upheld their claim of bona fide requirement for their own use and occupation. An appeal was taken to the court of Small Causes, Madras under S. 23 of the Act. During the pendency of the appeal an admission appears to have been made on behalf of the appellants in some miscellaneous petition that they were carrying on business in partnership. Certain other points also arose and the Chief Judge, Small Causes court, framed some additional issues on which he called for the findings of the Rent Controller. After the remand it was held by him that the application for eviction was not maintainable because the premises were actually required for the purpose of the firm in which only two of the appellants were partners.

(4) THE appellants filed a petition for revision in the High court. The learned Judge found that all the four appellants were partners of the firm Saleh Bros., and it was the partnership which was asking for the possession of the premises in the occupation of the tenant. As only two of them were shown in the register of firms as partners their petition for eviction was not maintainable under the Act since it was a proceeding to enforce a right arising out of a contract within the meaning of S. 69(3) of the Partnership Act. He even expressed the view that although the landlords of the premises in question prima facie were the four appellants but in reality and in the eye of law it was an unregistered partnership which owned the premises. As the requirement of an unregistered partnership had to be considered it could not be said that all the appellants were entitled to the possession of the building within the meaning of S. 10(3)(a)(iii)ofthe Act.

(5) S. 69 of the Partnership Act, to the extent, it is relevant is in the following terms:

"SECTION 69.-(1) No suit to enforce a right arising from acontract or conferred by this Act shall be instituted by or any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the arm is registered and the person suing is or has been shown in the Register of Firms as a partner in the firm.

(2) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm.