A suit for declaration and recovery of possession of a rented premises by the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased partners of a partnership firm, which was the tenant, is not maintainable if the firm was not registered as required under section 69 (2) of the Partnership Act, 1932.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 3. 5. 1990 passed by Sri S. C. Dutta, City Civil Court (13th Bench) Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1779 of 1981 whereby and whereunder he was pleased to hold that the suit was not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the same.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs, who are the appellants herein filed the suit for declaration and for recovery of possession. Their case, as built up before the Court below as well as before this Court was that one R. N. Sur and one N. C. Biswas were tenants under one Manoharlal Seal in respect of room No. 22 on the ground floor of premises No. 167 situated on Lenin Sarani (formerly known as dharmatala Street) Calcutta, on a rental @ Rs. 22/- per month plus Corporation surchages @ Rs. 21- per month.

( 3 ) R. N. Sur and N. C. Biswas carried on business of tailoring, bedding and general order supplying in partnership between themselves under the name and style of "r. N. Sur and N. C. Biswas. " It was stated that rent receipts stood in the name of the partnership firm and that the premises was used and occupied as a godown of the said partnership business and other shops situated on premises No. 167/7 and bearing Nos. 53 and 54 and which were adjacent to room No. 22, were used as offices and display counters for the business.

( 4 ) IT was further stated that in January 1960. N. C. Biswas expired and thereafter, in November, 1964. R. N. Sur also expired. Upon the death of these original tenants, the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 (who are also the appellant Nos. 1 to 5 herein) became the legal heirs and representatives of R. N. Sur. Similarly the plaintiff Nos. 6 to 9 (who are also the appellant Nos. 6 to 9 herein) became the legal heirs and representatives of N. C. Biswas and therefore, all of them i. e. the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 9 all became tenants in respect of the suit premises and carried on business in the name and style of "r. N. Sur and N. C. Biswas" on payment of rent to the defendants/respondent No. 1 herein and who represented the estate of Manoharlal Seal, since deceased.

( 5 ) IT was further stated that sometime in June, 1976 one Abdul Halim (defendant/respondent No. 2) approached the appellants as he was apparently an old customer and very well-acquainted with them and requested that he be allowed to use and occupy the suit premises as a temporary measure on the assurance that he would vacate as soon as he was able to find a permanent accommodation. Accepting his request, the appellants allowed him to occupy the suit premises purely as a temporary measure and, as a licensee.

( 6 ) HOWEVER, the appellants found out later on that Abdul Halim did not vacate the suit premises even after lapse of four years as a result whereof the appellants, by their letter dated 5. 9. 1081, revoked the licence and asked him to quit and vacate the suit premises within seven days from the date of receipt thereof.

( 7 ) IN the meantime, the appellants learnt, from local enquiry, that the defendant/respondent No. 1 had been granting rent receipts in favour of the said Abdul Halim in respect of the suit premises since February, 1981 and had been realizing rent from him also.

( 8 ) THE appellants asserted that they, at no point of time, had ever surrendered their tenancy rights in respect of the suit premises and in fact, were occupying the same as a tenants under the defendant/respondent No. 1 who had stopped accepting rent. According to the appellants, the defendant/respondent No. 1 had no right to issue rent receipts in favour Abdul Halim and therefore, they sought for a declaration to the effect that they were tenants tinder the defendant/ respondent No. 1 in respect of room No. 22; Ground floor; premise No. 167; lenin Sarani, Kolkata, at a monthly rent of Rs. 22/- and Corporation surcharge of Rs. 21- per month. They also sought for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondent No. 1 from realizing any further rent from Abdul