Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Alka Sarin, J.
Mount Shivalik Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
M/s J. Salwan & Company – Respondent
CR No. 669 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 04-01-2023
Partnership Act - Application of Section 69(2) - [RENT PETITION] - [Indian Partnership Act, 1932, Section 69(2)] - The court discussed the applicability of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act to the ejectment petition filed by the landlord-respondent. It held that the bar of Section 69(2) is not attracted to any and every contract referred to in the plaint as the source of title to an asset owned by the firm. To attract the bar of Section 69(2), the contract in question must be the one entered into by the partnership firm with the defendant and must also be the one entered into by the plaintiff firm in the course of its business dealings. Section 69(2) cannot be a bar for the enforcement of a statutory right or a common law right by an unregistered firm. The right to evict a tenant was not a right arising from a contract but a common law right or a statutory right.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant-petitioner filed an application for dismissal of the ejectment petition, contending that the landlord-respondent was an unregistered partnership firm, and hence the ejectment petition would be barred under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rigors of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act were not attracted to the ejectment petition as the right to evict a tenant was not a right arising from a contract but a common law right or a statutory right.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act to the ejectment petition filed by the landlord-respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act is not a bar for the enforcement of a statutory right or a common law right by an unregistered firm. The right to evict a tenant was not a right arising from a contract but a common law right or a statutory right.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the Rent Controller was directed to give an opportunity to the tenant-petitioner to place on record whatever documents it wishes in order to show the payments which it claims need to be adjusted before assessing the rent.
JUDGMENT
Alka Sarin, J. - The present revision petition has been preferred by the tenantpetitioner aggrieved by the order dated 22.02.2022 whereby the application filed by it for dismissal of the rent petition has been dismissed by the Rent Controller.
2. The tenant-petitioner took the demised premises on rent from the landlord-respondent vide lease and licence deed dated 19.02.2018. In 2021 the landlord-respondent filed an ejectment petition against the tenantpetitioner seeking its eviction from the demised premises. On 30.11.2021 the tenant-petitioner filed an application for dismissal of the ejectment petition in view of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Partnership Act') contending that the landlord-respondent was an unregistered partnership firm. The landlord-respondent filed a reply to the said application and contested the same. Vide the impugned order the Rent Controller dismissed the said application. Hence, the present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner would contend that para 1 of the ejectment petition refers to a partnership deed dated 06.05.2019. However, there are no pleadings as to the said partnership being a registered one and hence the ejectment petition would be barred under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act. It is further the contention that the names of the partners are not reflected in the Register of Firms. Learned senior counsel submitted that the lease and licence deed would be considered to be a contract arising in the normal course of business of the landlordrespondent and hence the rigors of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act would be attracted. Reference was also made to Section 14 of the Partnership Act to contend that since the demised premises belong to the firm and the rent is also going to the partnership firm, therefore, the present transaction would be considered as a transaction in the course of business of the landlord-respondent and the ejectment petition would be barred under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act. It is further the contention that the partnership deed does not bar the demised premises from being rented and even in this manner the transaction would be considered to be a transaction in the course of business. It is also submitted that the lease and licence in the present case is subsisting and no termination notice has been given to the tenant-petitioner and this was also a reason for considering the transaction as being in the course of business. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel has relied upon the following judgments :
(i) Patil Automation Private Limited & Ors. vs. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd. [(2022) 10 SCC 1]
(ii) Andhra Pradesh Coop. Wool Spinning Mills Ltd. & Anr. vs. G. Mahanandi & Company & Ors. [AIR 2003 Andhra Pradesh 418]
(iii) Satish Sharma vs. Hem Chand Sharma & Anr. [2015 (88) RCR (Civil) 493]
(iv) Mukesh Kumar vs. M/s Continental Construction Ltd. [2010 (4) RCR (Civil) 639]
(v) Jagdish Chander Gupta vs. Kajaria Traders (India) Ltd. [AIR 1964 SC 1882]
(vi) Saifuddin Hussainibhoy Siamwala & Ors. vs. The Burma Cycle Trading Co. [AIR 1968 Madras 154]
(vii) Saifuddin Hussainibhoy Siamwala & Ors. vs. Burma Cycle Trading Co. [(1971) 3 SCC 881]
(viii) Hansraj Manot vs. Messrs. Gorak Nath Champalal Pandey [1961 (66) CalWN 262]
(ix) Gorak Nath Champalal Pandey vs. Hansraj Manot, [1969 (74) CalWN 269]
(x) Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. vs. Ganesh Property [(1998) 7 SCC 184]
(xi) Purushottam & Anr. vs. Shivraj Fine Arts Litho Works & Ors. [(2007) 15 SCC 58]
4. Per contra learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord-respondent has contended that the present transaction cannot be treated as a transaction in the course of business of the landlord-respondent and hence it would not attract the rigors of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act. It is submitted that Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act cannot be a bar for the enforcement of a statutory right or a common law right by
Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act is not a bar for the enforcement of a statutory right or a common law right by an unregistered firm.
Point of Law : Section 154 (1)(c) of Assam Land and Revenue Regulation cannot act as a bar as regards the maintainability of suit for which said cannot also be a substantial question of law involved ....
(1) Suit for enforcing right of avoidance of a document on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation as also statutory rights of seeking declaration and injunction can be filed by an unregistered par....
An unregistered partnership firm cannot file a suit for enforcement of a contract against a third party, as per Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act.
An unregistered partnership firm cannot enforce rights arising from a contract under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, which prohibits such suits against third parties.
Unregistered partnership firms can enforce rights for accounts and dissolution via arbitration, as outlined in the Indian Partnership Act, Section 69.
The court affirmed that suits regarding partnership rights can proceed even if the firm is unregistered and emphasized the requirement of proper evidence to establish claims of profit-sharing.
The central legal point established is that the need of the landlord, even in an unregistered firm, should be considered for eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 196....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
