Failure to register under section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act renders suits for ejectment not maintainable.

1. THESE are three appeals under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against a common judgment of our learned brother, Chatterji J. as he then was, in three suits for ejectment, which came up to this Court in second appeal. The present appeals are directed against decrees of dismissal, passed by chatterji, J. in the above three cases.

2. THE plaintiff's suits were dismissed by him primarily on the ground that the suits were not maintainable, as the plaintiff firm was not registered under section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership act. The plaintiff-appellant, in each of these cases, argued before our learned brother that the said section would have no application to the instant cases, which were suits for ejectment in as much as such suits could not be held to be suits for reliefs, arising out of a contract. That argument was rejected by chatterji, J. and, in our view, correctly. The right of ejectment of a landlord flows from the relative contract of tenancy. It is clear, therefore, that suits for ejectment would be suits of the description contemplated by section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act.

We are also of the opinion that, on the express terms of the said section, read in the light of the statutory language, used therein, it will apply to the instant cases. We, accordingly, overrule this contention of the plaintiff-appellant, with the result that the instant appeals will fail and they will be dismissed. There will be no order for costs in this Court.