Jagannathan, J.

Whether the suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm for possession and mesne profits can be said to be not maintainable in view of the bar under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is the question that calls for an answer in this second appeal filed by the plaintiffs in the trial court.

2. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs, who are the partners of an unregistered partnership firm, seeking the relief of possession and mesne profits with a direction to the defendant to deliver vacant possession of plaint `A schedule premises and for recovery of mesne profits at Rs.500/- per day till the date of delivery of the vacant possession and it is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant was a tenant under them on a rent of Rs.70/- per day and following the defendant unlawfully subletting the plaint schedule premises to one Mohammed Kunhi, the plaintiffs had to terminate the tenancy by issuing a quit notice on 20.1.2003 requiring the defendant to quit and surrender the suit premises immediately after the end on 28.2.2003.

3. Theaforesaid suit of the plaintiffs was resisted by the defendant by denying the landlord-tenant relationship and also the fact of sub-letting by him and also took up the stand that the tenancy had not been validly terminated.

4. The trial court framed five issues in the light of the stand taken by the respective parties and; after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the landlord-tenant relationship is established and so also the fact of the plaintiffs having issued a valid notice of termination and the issue concerning mesne profits was answered partly in favour of the plaintiffs and were held to be entitled to the delivery of possession of the suit property. Following the said finding, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed as prayed for except insofar as the amount of mesne profits per day is concerned and the trial court held that at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day, the mesne profits ought to be paid by the defendant and gave two months time to the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises.

5. The lower appellate court, on appeal by the defendant, held that the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable because, the firm of which the plaintiffs were the partners was an unregistered firm and, therefore, the bar under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act came in the way of maintaining the suit. The lower appellate court also noted the fact that the firm had been registered subsequent to the filing of the suit. Relying on several decisions, the lower appellate court, therefore, held that the suit instituted by the plaintiffs was not valid and the very fact of the firm being registered subsequent to the filing of the suit cannot come to the rescue of the plaintiffs and, therefore, the appeal preferred by the defendant was allowed and the trial courts judgment was set aside. Aggrieved by the reversal at the hands of the lower appellate court, the plaintiffs have come up in this second appeal.

.6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of this case as well as the judgments of the courts below. This court, at the time of admission of this appeal, had raised the following substantial question of law for consideration:

."Whether the learned judge of the lower appellate court was right in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court which had decreed the suit for eviction, a suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm, only on the reasoning that the suit was not maintainable due to non-registration of the plaintiff-firm notwithstanding the law laid by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Raptocos Brett & Co. Ltd. Vs. Ganesh Property, reported in 1998(7) SCC 184 and followed in the case of M/s. Haldiram Bhujiawala & Another Vs. M/s Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar & Another, reported in JT 2000(2) SC 596, holding that non-registration of a firm will not affect the maintainability of a suit whe