Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
Subodh Kumar Jain – Appellant
Versus
Surjit Auto Agency – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DWARKA DHISH BANSAL, J.
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2010 passed by First Additional District Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Regular Civil Appeal No.46-A/2010 affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2010 passed by Sixth Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal in Civil Suit No.692- A/2009, whereby both the Courts below have concurrently decreed the respondent/plaintiff’s suit for eviction filed on the ground of bonafide requirement available under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Rent Act’).
2. In short the facts are that the respondent/plaintiff had instituted a suit for eviction of the rented shop no.4 admeasuring 7’8’’x 24’ sq.ft. situated on plot No.7, Lala Lajpat Rai Colony, Bhopal in which the defendants were inducted as tenants on 25.08.1987 and thereafter a written agreement of tenancy (Ex.P/1) was executed on 08.09.1990 for a period of 5 years i.e. upto 01.09.1995 by previous landlord and owner namely Arjun Das and Shanti Devi, who later on sold the shop on 01.02.2007 to the plaintiff- M/s Surjit Auto Agency. Th
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 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....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdictional fact of registration of the partnership firm must be averred in the plaint to avoid the suit being rendered void under Sect....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is not maintainable and is inherently defective and no....
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.
The non-registration of a partnership firm as required under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 renders the suits filed by the unregistered firm non est in law, and subsequent registra....
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
