Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
DWARKA DHISH BANSAL, J.
Subodh Kumar Jain And Others - Appellants
Versus
M/S Surjit Auto Agency – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 276 of 2011
Decided On : 09-12-2025
(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12(1) -- Partnership Act, 1932 -- S. 69(2) -- Civil P.C. 1908 -- O. 30 R. 1 -- maintainability of suit for eviction filed by unregistered partnership firm -- S. 69(2) of Partnership Act creates bar only in respect of suit instituted by unregistered partnership firm for enforcement of rights arising out of contract -- where claim originates from statutory obligation, said provision has no application -- remedy of eviction u/s. 12(1) of Accommodation Control Act is a statutory right -- suit filed by unregistered partnership firm to enforce such right cannot be treated as non-maintainable -- suit for eviction is clearly maintainable. AIR 1998 SC 3085 = (1998) 7 SCC 184, AIR 2000 SC 1287 = (2000) 3 SCC 250 and AIR 2022 SC 772 = 2022 (1) RCR (Civil) 802 = (2022) 13 SCC 772 followed. 2025 SCC Online SC 2109 referred to. [Para 16]
(2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12(1)(f) -- Partnership Act, 1932 -- S. 69(2) -- maintainability of suit for eviction filed by one partner of unregistered partnership firm -- plaintiff clearly proved that he has been authorized by all other partners of firm -- in support of oral testimony, he has placed on record partnership deed as well as power of attorney -- held -- suit filed by unregistered partnership firm through one of its partners is not hit by S. 69(2) of Partnership Act and is maintainable. (2016) 11 SCC 313, AIR 2007 MP 165, 1989 (I) MPWN 174 and AIR 2017 MP 16 distinguished. [Paras 17 & 18]
(3) Civil P.C. 1908 -- S. 100 -- M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 -- S. 12(1)(f) -- challenge to findings on question of bona fide requirement -- in absence of substantial question of law, the argument cannot be considered, especially when no prayer for formulation of additional question of law has been made -- even otherwise, findings on question of bona fide requirement do not appear to be perverse or illegal, hence are not liable to be interfered with in limited scope of second appeal -- these are pure findings of fact and do not raise any substantial question of law. 2018 (1) MPLJ 457 = 2017 (3) JLJ 375 relied on. [Para 20]
(4) Civil P.C. 1908 -- O. 41 R. 27 and O. 6 R. 17 -- M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 -- S.12(1)(f) -- availability of alternative suitable vacant accommodation -- argument advanced by counsel for appellants in respect of decision of application under O. 41 R. 27, CPC prior to final judgment and non-decision of application under O. 6 R. 17, CPC does not affect merits of case because defendants have not placed on record sufficient material to prove availability of alternative suitable vacant accommodation with plaintiff. (2012) 8 SCC 148 referred to. [Para 21]
¼1½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-Á-½ & /kkjk 12¼1½ & Hkkxhnkjh vf/kfu;e] 1932 & /kkjk 69¼2½ & flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 30 fu- 1 & vjftLVªh—r Hkkxhnkjh QeZ }kjk çLrqr csn[kyh okn pyus ;ksX; gksuk & Hkkxhnkjh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 69¼2½ esa vjftLVªh—r Hkkxhnkjh QeZ }kjk lafonktkr vf/kdkjksa ds çorZu ds fy, lafLFkr okn ds laca/k esa gh otZu l`ftr fd;k x;k gS & tgk¡ nkos dk ewy dkuwuh ck/;rk gS ogk¡ mä mica/k ykxw ugha gksrk & LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼1½ ds v/khu csn[kyh dk mipkj dkuwuh vf/kdkj gS & jftLVªh—r Hkkxhnkjh QeZ }kjk ,sls vf/kdkj dks çofrZr djkus ds fy, çLrqr fd;k x;k okn pyus v;ksX; ugha ekuk tk ldrk & csn[kyh ds fy, okn Li"Vr% pyus ;ksX; gSA ,vkbvkj 1998 ,llh 3085 % ¼1998½ 7 ,llhlh 184] ,vkbvkj 2000 ,llh 1287 % ¼2000½ 3 ,llhlh 250 rFkk ,vkbvkj 2022 ,llh 772 % 2022 ¼1½ vkjlhvkj ¼flfoy½ 802 % ¼2022½ 13 ,llhlh 772 vuqlfjrA 2025 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 2109 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 16½
¼2½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-Á-½ & /kkjk 12¼1½¼p½ & Hkkxhnkjh vf/kfu;e] 1932 & /kkjk 69¼2½ & vjftLVªh—r Hkkxhnkjh QeZ ds ,d Hkkxhnkj }kjk çLrqr csn[kyh okn pyus ;ksX; gksuk & oknh us Li"Vr% lkfcr fd;k fd mls QeZ ds vU; lc Hkkxhnkjksa }kjk çkf/k—r fd;k x;k gS & ekSf[kd ifjlk{; ds leFkZu esa mlus Hkkxhnkjh foys[k ds lkFk&lkFk eq[rkjukek Hkh vfHkys[k ij çLrqr fd;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & vjftLVªh—r Hkkxhnkjh QeZ ds Hkkxhnkjksa esa ls ,d }kjk çLrqr fd;k x;k okn Hkkxhnkjh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 69¼2½ ls vkgr ugha rFkk pyus ;ksX; gSA ¼2016½ 11 ,llhlh 313] ,vkbvkj 2007 ,eih 165] 1989 ¼1½ e-Á- ohDyh uksV~l 174 rFkk ,vkbvkj 2017 ,eih 16 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 17 ,oa 18½
¼3½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & /kkjk 100 & e-ç- LFkku fu;a=.k vfèkfu;e] 1961 & /kkjk 12¼1½¼p½ & okLrfod vko';drk ds ç'u ij fn, x, fu"d"kZ ij vk{ksi & fof/k ds lkjoku~ ç'u ds vHkko esa bl rdZ ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk] fo'ks"kr% tc fof/k dk vfrfjä ç'u fojfpr fd, tkus dh çkFkZuk ugha dh xbZ & vU;Fkk Hkh] okLrfod vko';drk ds ç'u ij fu"d"kZ foi;ZLr ;k voSèk çrhr ugha gksrs blfy, f}rh; vihy dh lhfer O;kfIr esa gLr{ksi fd, tkus ;ksX; ugha & ;g fu"d"kZ fo'kq) rF; ds fu"d"kZ gSa rFkk buls fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku~ ç'u mn~Hkwr ugha gksrkA 2018 ¼1½ ,eih,yts 457 % 2017 ¼3½ ts,yts 375 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 20½
¼4½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 41 fu- 27 rFkk vk- 6 fu- 17 & e-Á- LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 & /kkjk 12¼1½¼p½ & mi;qä vkuqdfYid fjä LFkku dh miyC/krk & vafre fu.kZ; ds iwoZ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk ds vk- 41 fu- 27 ds v/khu vkosnu ds fofu'p; rFkk flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk ds vk- 6 fu- 17 ds v/khu vkosnu dk fofu'p;u ugha fd, tkus ds laca/k esa vihykFkhZx.k ds dkmUlsy }kjk dh xbZ cgl ls çdj.k ds xq.kkxq.k çHkkfor ugha gksrs D;ksafd çfroknhx.k us oknh ds ikl mi;qä vkuqdfYid fjä LFkku dh miyC/krk lkfcr djus ds fy, vfHkys[k ij i;kZIr lkexzh çLrqr ugha dhA ¼2012½ 8 ,llhlh 148 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 21½
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. The suit was filed with the allegations that plaintiff is engaged in the business of Bajaj Auto Agency and it is in need of the suit shop for expansion of its existing business of Bajaj Auto Agency, which is being run by the plaintiff on plot nos. 4, 5 & 6 and there is no other alternative suitable vacant accommodation available with the plaintiff. On inter alia allegations the suit was filed.
3. The defendants appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that the plaintiff being an unregistered partnership firm and the suit filed by one of the partners is not maintainable in view of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (in short ‘the Act of 1932’). It is also contended that the plaintiff is already in possession of several other alternative vacant accommodations and it does not require the suit shop for its alleged expansion of business. On inter alia contentions the suit was prayed to be dismissed.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed issues and recorded evidence of the parties. The plaintiff in support of its case examined Tulsi Nainwani (PW/1), Ramesh Nainwani (PW/2) and produced documentary evidence (Ex.P/1 to P/29). The defendants also in support of their case examined Sunil Kumar Jain (DW/1) and produced documentary evidence (Ex.D/1 to D/15).
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 29.01.2010 decreed the suit on the ground of bonafide requirement available under Sec. 12(1)(f) of the Rent Act, against which defendants preferred Civil Appeal No.46-A/2010, which was dismissed by First Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 22.12.2010.
6. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, instant second appeal was preferred by the defendants, which was admitted for final hearing on 19.04.2011 on the following substantial question of law :-
“Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff, an unregistered partnership firm, through one of its partners for eviction of the defendants from the suit is hit by the provisions of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act 1932 ?”
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the plaintiff is an unregistered partnership firm and is having five partners, therefore, the suit filed on behalf of an unregistered partnership firm that too by one of the partners was not maintainable being hit by the provisions of Section 69(2) of the Act of 1932. He submits that this question was raised before the Courts below, but the same was not considered by the Courts below in its real perspective, which has vitiated the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. In support of his submissions he placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Umesh
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
