P. S. NARAYANA, J.

( 1 ) THESE two C. R. Ps. are filed by a common landlord A. S. Mehta and Co. , represented by its partners Mr. Devendra Kumar Mehta and 5 others. The petitioners in both r. C. Nos. 288/82 and 289/82 on the file of principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, filed eviction petitions against two different tenants, one Yogendranath Sachdev, the respondent in R. C. No. 288/82 and another optical Centre represented by its partner wajahat Hussain, the respondent in R. C. No. 289/82. In R. C. No. 288/82, P. W. 1 was examined and Exs. P-1 to P-21 were marked and likewise R. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. R-l to R-16 were marked and ultimately, the R. C. was allowed and aggrieved by the same, the tenant filed r. A. No. 171/91 on the file of the Chief judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, and the appellate authority had reversed the matter, and aggrieved by the same, the petitioners in the said R. C. have filed c. R. P. NO. 5513 of 1998. In R. C. No. 289/82, p. W. 1 was examined and Exs. P-l to P-12 were marked and likewise R. W. 1 was examined and Exs. R-l to R-22 were marked and ultimately, the R. C. was allowed and aggrieved by the same the tenant filed r. A. No. 187/91 on the file of the Chief judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, and the same was allowed by the appellate authority and aggrieved by the same, the petitioners in the said R. C. filed C. R. P. No. 55124 of 1998.

( 2 ) AS it can be seen even from the orders of the learned Rent Controller, it was recorded at paragraph No. 3 that in view of the pleadings of the respective parties and the evidence adduced by them and the arguments advanced at the Bar, the following points arise for consideration and point No. 1 referred to in the said order is "whether the petition by unregistered firm is maintainable". The appellate Court also had discussed about this aspect at paragraph no. 6 of the order. The revision petitioner being an unregistered firm, had filed these eviction petitions against two different tenants. Section 69 of the Indian Partnership act, 1932 dealing with the effect of non- registration, reads as follows: 69. Effect of non-registration:- (1) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this Act shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of 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 firm 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. (3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to a claim of set-off or other proceeding to enforce a right arising from a contract, but shall not affect, (a) the enforcement of any right to sue for the dissolution of a firm or for accounts of a dissolved firm, or any right or power to realise the property of a dissolved firm, or (b) the powers of an official assignee, receiver or Court under the presidency-towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (3 of 1909) or the Provincial insolvency Act, 1920 (5 of 1920) to realise the property of an insolvent partner. (4) This section shall not apply: (a) to firms or to partners in firms which have no place of business in (the territories to which this Act extends), or whose places of business in (the said territories), are situated in areas to which, by notification under (Section 56), this chapter does not apply, or (b) to any suit or claim of set-off not exceeding one hundred rupees in value which, in the Presidency-towns, is not of a kind specified in section 19 of the Presidency Small cause Courts Act, 1882 (5 of 1882), or, outside the Presidency-towns, is not of a kind specified in the Second schedule to the Provincial Smal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document