A suit filed by a dissolved partnership firm is not maintainable under Sec. 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932, and the decree should be restricted to the area covered by the original tenancy agreement.

JUDGMENT

MANISH PITALE, J. - The original defendant No.9 is the petitioner before this Court, challenging concurrent orders passed by the two Courts below. The respondent No.1 is the original plaintiff while respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are the original defendant Nos. 2 to 6 before the Courts below.

2. The respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration, perpetual and mandatory injunction under Sec. 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, before the Small Causes Court at Nagpur, against the original defendant Nos.1 to 8. Thereafter, the defendant No.9 i.e. the present petitioner was added as a party to the aforesaid suit. The said suit was filed on 21/05/2009, wherein it was stated that the respondent No.1 i.e. M/s Maharashtra Industries was a registered partnership firm in which Kailashchandra Jankilal Bundiwal and Mohanlal Balmukund Bundiwal, were partners. The plaintiff firm was stated to be a registered partnership firm bearing registration No. 907 of 1978-79. The plaintiff firm claimed that the suit property in its possession was wrongly and illegally taken over by the original defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the intervening night of 14/05/2009 and 15/05/2009. It was submitted that the said act was carried out by the said defendants with the help of anti-social elements, which necessitated filing of the aforesaid suit.

3. On the basis of such claims, the plaintiff firm sought a declaration that the aforesaid act of taking forcible possession by original defendant Nos.1 and 2 was illegal, with a further declaration that the plaintiff firm was entitled to enter into the suit premises to carry on its business, requiring a direction to the defendants to restore possession of the suit property i.e. tenanted plot admeasuring 2178 sq.ft. to the plaintiff firm. A further declaration was sought to the effect that the defendants ought not to disturb the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property, without following due process of law.

4. As the suit property was purchased by the petitioner i.e. the original defendant No.9 on 23/06/2015, the petitioner was added as a party to the suit and the plaint was amended to claim that the petitioner had illegally demolished an RCC structure admeasuring 809 sq.ft. existing on the suit property. A prayer was also made for restoring the said structure.

5. The original defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed their written statement to the aforesaid suit, denying the claims made in the plaint. It was specifically stated that the plaintiff firm stood dissolved by death of one of the partners, as the firm consisted of only two partners. It was stated that even in the records of the Registrar of Firms, the death of one of the partners of the firm had been recorded and it was also recorded that, as a consequence, the firm stood dissolved on 17/12/2007. On this basis, it was stated that in the plaint it was wrongly claimed that the firm was continued and that it was re-registered on 14/05/2009. A question was raised as regards the maintainability of the suit in view of the said facts.

6. It was further contended that the possession of the suit property was willingly handed over by the surviving partner of the original firm in April, 2009 and that certain amount had also been paid in cash in that regard, thereby indicating that the theory of illegal dispossession in the intervening night of 14/05/2009 and 15/05/2009, was false and misleading. The said defendants denied the reliefs claimed on behalf of the plaintiff.

7. The petitioner also filed written statement in the aforesaid suit, upon being added as a party. In this written statement also, a specific ground was taken that the plaintiff firm stood dissolved and that it did not exist, thereby indicating that the suit itself ought to fail on that ground. The petitioner also denied the reliefs claimed on behalf of the plaintiff and it was stated that the suit itself was vexatious and that it deserved to be dismissed.

8. The parties led evidence in support of their res