This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.690 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsif, Madurai Town, Madurai.

2. The contention of the revision petitioner, who is shown as defendant in the above suit, is as under:-

The premises bearing Door No.51, West Masi Street, Madurai, is owned by him. He entered into a rental agreement with one Mohamed Yaliah and his wife Sajarath Thaiyaba on 10.10.2012. They were running a shop in the name and style of ''M/s.Supreme Pipe Syndicate''. Mohamed Yaliah passed away somewhere in the year 2014. After the demise of Mohamed Yaliah, the revision petitioner sought for the vacant possession of the building from Sajarath Thaiyaba. She failed to vacate the premises instead, filed RCOP.No.215/2015 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Madurai, for deposit of rent. While so, the suit which is sought to be strike off filed (O.S.No.690/2016) in the name of M/s. Supreme Pipe Syndicate represented by Rahmathullah and Sajarath Thaiyaba as partners. There is no averment in the plaint that the said M/s Supreme Pipe Syndicate is a registered firm. According to the revision petitioner, the unregistered firm is not entitled to file a suit. There is a specific bar under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act. While so, the Trial Court has not only taken the suit on file, but also granted an ad-interim order of injunction in favour of the unregistered firm represented by Sajarath Thaiyaba and Rahmathullah.

3. It is contended by the revision petitioner that there is no privity of contract with Rahmathullah or with the so-called firm by name M/s.Supreme Pipe Syndicate. The relationship of landlord-tenant was only with Mohamed Yaliah and his wife Sajarath Thaiyaba. The suit is ex facie an abuse of legal process and the Trial Court without application of mind regarding the maintainability of the suit has not only admitted the suit on file, but also passed an ad-interim injunction prejudicing the right in interest of the revision petitioner.

4. On receipt of notice, the respondent entered appearance through his counsel and submitted that this suit has a chequered history wherein, the respondent/plaintiff who was inducted as a partner in M/s.Supreme Pipe Syndicate was carrying on business vide unregistered partnership deed dated 02.03.2015 along with Sajarath Thaiyaba in the name and style of ''M/s.Supreme Pipe Syndicate''. Since there was an attempt to evict him forcibly pending RCOP.No.215/2015 for depositing the rent, he has filed the suit for injunction restraining the defendant/revision petitioner, his men, agent and any other person from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property as a statutory tenant except under due process of law.

5. It is further contended that the Trial Court on considering his interlocutory application has granted ad-interim injunction not to evict him except due process of law. While so, the landlord with political influence, illegally dispossessed him and put the premises under lock. So, he has filed W.P(MD)No.24398/2016 seeking Writ of Mandamus, to remove the lock and seal illegally put up by the revision petitioner herein. The High Court on 05.04.2017 after getting a report from the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, PEW, Madurai City, held that there is an illegal dispossession of the writ petitioner (Rahamathullah) by Thiagarajan (revision petitioner herein) with the help of certain members of the political party. The said shop has been kept under lock and key of the Police. Case in Crime No.41/2017 has also been registered by the Central Crime Branch, Madurai, against Thiagarajan and the members of the political party for illegal trespass and forcible eviction of the writ petitioner. Therefore, Mandamus was issued to the Police to hand over possession of the property to the writ petitioner and also put necessary pickets for the said purpose.

6. Against this ord