JUDGMENT :

Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

1. Heard Mr. O.P. Bhati, the learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. N.N. Jha, the learned advocate for the respondents.

2. The respondents No. 1 to 4 are the plaintiffs in T.S. No. 212/2017, where the petitioners are arrayed as the defendants No. 1 and 2. The said suit was filed for ejection and for realization of arrear rent, pendente lite and future rent, etc. In the said suit, the petitioners had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with section 151 CPC for rejection of plaint, being Misc. (J) Case No. 266/2018, inter-alia, on the ground that the respondent No. 4 herein was an unregistered partnership firm for which the suit was barred under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932. The said application was rejected by the learned Court of Munsiff No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court") by the order impugned herein. Hence, by filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dt. 14.09.2018, passed by the learned trial Court in Misc.(J) Case No. 266/18 arising in T.S. No. 212/2017.

3. With the consent of the learned advocates for both the sides, the matter was heard at length in the motion stage.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent No. 1 is the father of the respondents No. 2 and 3 and by virtue of a Lease Deed, they had leased out the suit premises consisting of shop room No. 3 in the lower ground floor of their building called T.N. Tower, located at AT Road, Guwahati to the petitioners w.e.f. 01.02.1998 and, as such, the relationship between the petitioners and the respondents No. 1 to 3 is that of tenant and landlord. It is submitted that under clause 1 and 2 of the said lease agreement, it was envisaged that in addition to paying monthly rent to the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, the petitioners would also have to pay the monthly maintenance charges, as enhanced from time to time, to the respondent No. 4, i.e. M/s. Mehta Enterprises, the authorized agency of the landlords. Reference is made to the statements made in the plaint to show that the said arrangement was continuing for payment of monthly rent and separate monthly maintenance charges to the respondents, for which separate money receipts were issued by the respondent No. 4.

5. By referring to the unregistered partnership deed dated 01.04.1997 between the respondents No. 2 and 3, it is submitted that as the respondent No. 4 was an unregistered partnership firm, having joined the suit as plaintiff No. 4, the provisions of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932 goy attracted, which provided that no suit shall lie for enforcement of any right of such partnership firm. It is further submitted that the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 had statutory right under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 to evict the petitioners, but such right was not available to the respondent No. 4, as the respondent No. 4 was admittedly an agent of the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 to collect monthly maintenance charges for which the respondent No. 4 cannot enter into the shoes of the landlord of the petitioners. Moreover, in terms of the lease agreement, between the petitioners and the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 had surrendered and/or abandoned their right to collect the monthly maintenance charges and, as such, when the respondent No. 4 was issuing separate money receipt for monthly maintenance charges, it would constitute a separate agreement.

6. Per contra, the learned advocate for the respondents has submitted that the right of the respondent No. 4 to collect maintenance charges had been flowing from the lease deed executed by the petitioners (tenants) and the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 (landlord). Hence, it was not open for the petitioners to claim that issuance of a separate money receipt would constitute a separate agreement between the petition