The central legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, do not debar a person from claiming a right arising from a statute or enactment.

V.S. Aggarwal, J. - By this common judgment, two Civil Revision Nos. 6404 and 6423 of 1999 can conveniently be disposed of together because both these petitions arise out of the same order dated 25.9.1999 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Panipat. Vide the impugned order, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to lead additional evidence.

2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner asserting itself to be a registered partnership concern had filed an eviction application. The same had been contested. The petitioner submitted an application seeking permission to produce the certificate of registration of firms. The application was contested. The learned Rent Controller had dismissed the same holding that no due diligence has been shown by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, present petition has been filed.

3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no issue had been framed with respect to the said controversy. He further urged that since it is an eviction petition, it is not necessary that the petitioner firm should be registered and, therefore, the learned Rent Controller was in error in dismissing the application.

4. Section 69(1) and (2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (for short "the Act") read as under :-

"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 firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm.

5. It is abundantly clear that bar from filing a civil suit besides others only arises in case the said suit arises out of a contract. If the right accrues not from a contract but from another statute or enactment, in that event the provisions of Section 69 of the Act will not debar a person from claiming that right. Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, specifically prescribes that if there is any violation of the provisions of the Act, right to seek eviction would arise. It is a right created by the Statute. The contract may not defeat it. Therefore, Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, will not be a bar.

6. This question has been considered by the Patna High Court in the case of Padam Singh Jain v. Chandra Brothers and others, AIR 1990 Patna 95. In the cited case it was held that suit for eviction could be filed by unregistered firm because such a suit is not enforcement of agreement.

7. In the case of Kalra Iron Stores v. Faridabad Fabricators (P) Ltd. (No. 1), 1992(73) Company Cases 330, a petition for winding up was filed by a firm which was not registered. The question for consideration was as to whether the firm must be registered and if section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act debar the filing of eviction petition. The Delhi High Court held as under :-

"Reverting to the second objection, it has to be borne in mind that section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act contains only a prohibition on an unregistered firm filing a suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by the said Act. The firm has to be registered and the person suing has to be a registered partner. The suit to attract Section 69 has to be one to enforce a right arising from a contract or a right conferred by the Act. Mr. Khanna has not been able to cite any judgment holding that Section 69 would be applicable to winding up proceedings under the Companies Act. In the winding up petition primarily the Court is requir