Radhakrishnan, J.

Whether a petition for eviction filed by an unregistered partnership firm under section 11 of Act 2 of 1965 is hit by sec. 69(2) of Indian Partnership Act 1932 is the question that has came up for consideration in this case.

2. Eviction petition was filed by an unregistered partnership firm represented by a partner on 15-12-1979. While the rent control petition was pending the partnership firm got registered on 21-3-1980. Fact that the partnership firm was not registered on the date of the filing of the rent control petition is not disputed. Rent Control petition was verified and signed by a partner of the unregistered firm. Contention was raised since the firm was not registered under the Partnership Act the petition was not registered under the Partnership Act the petition was not maintainable in view of Sec. 69(2) of the Act. Counsel for the tenant placed reliance on the decision of the Madras High Court in Snifuddin Hussainbhoy Siamwala and others, AIR 1968 Madras 154. Counsel also submitted landlord was enforcing right which originated from a contract and consequently the rent control proceeding would fall within the expression other proceedings, consequently the bar under Sec.69(2) would apply. Counsel appearing for the landlord on the other hand, contended that the landlord is enforcing not a contractual right but a statutory right guaranteed to him under Sec.11 of the Rent Control Act in case the tenant fails to vacate the tenanted premises. Reference was also made to the decision in Padam Singh Jain V. M/s. Chandra Bros. AIR 1990 Patna 95. Counsel also made reference to a decision of the apex court in Haldiram Bhujiawala V. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar, (2000) 3 SCC 250.

3. We may first examine the question as to whether the rent control petition filed under Sec.11is hit by Sec.69(2) of the Partnership Act. Landlord can seek eviction of the tenant only under the provisions of the Rent Control Act, Act 2 of 1965 not on the basis of the agreement. Kerala Rent Act is a complete machinery providing the rights and obligations of the landlord and tenant. Rights available to the landlord under the general law are substantially curtailed by the provisions of the Rent Act. Sec.11(1) enables the landlord to prefer an application for eviction on certain specified grounds. Section starts with a non obstante clause. Expressions “notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract” require emphasis. The non obstante clause would outweigh or override the contractual obligations of the parties. Non obstante clause in our view would even override the provisions of the Partnership Act, especially Sec.69 and so also Sec. 69(2). The rights given to the landlord to file petition for eviction on any of the grounds envisaged under Sec.11(1) is statutory right conferred under the Rent Act and not controlled by any other law or contract. We may in this connection refer to the relevant portion 11(1) which reads as follows:

“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract a tenant shall not be evicted, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, except in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”

As per Sec.11(1)(a) a landlord who seek to evict his tenant shall apply to the Rent Control Court for a direction in that behalf. Reference may also be made to Sec.69 of the Partnership Act which reads as follows:

“69. Effect of non-registration:-- (1) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this Act shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered and the person suing is or has been shown in the Register of Firms as a partner in the firm.

(2) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the fir