1998 (9) TMI 666 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit filed by the respondent was barred u/s 69(2) of the Partnership Act either wholly or in part.
2. If the suit was barred, whether subsequent registration of the plaintiff's firm under the Partnership Act could revive the suit or make it competent from the date of such registration.
3. What final order should be passed.

Summary:
Point No. 1:
The plaintiff, an unregistered partnership firm, filed a suit for possession and damages against the defendant after the lease expired. The defendant contended that the suit was barred u/s 69(2) of the Partnership Act as the firm was not registered at the time of filing. The court noted that Section 69(2) bars suits by unregistered firms to enforce rights arising from contracts. The court analyzed the plaint and observed that the plaintiff's cause of action was partly based on the breach of lease covenants and partly on statutory obligations under Section 108(q) read with Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act. The court concluded that the suit was partly barred u/s 69(2) for enforcing contractual rights but was maintainable for enforcing statutory rights.

Point No. 2:
The court did not find it necessary to decide whether subsequent registration of the firm could revive the suit, as the suit was already found to be maintainable to the extent it was based on statutory rights. However, the court noted arguments from both sides. The appellant argued that subsequent registration could not revive a stillborn suit, citing various High Court decisions. The respondent contended that subsequent registration should cure the defect to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary technicalities, citing decisions that supported a liberal interpretation.

Point No. 3:
The court held that the suit was partly barred u/s 69(2) but was maintainable for enforcing statutory rights. Consequently, the decree for possession passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court was upheld. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was granted time to vacate the premises until 30.6.1999, subject to conditions.

Final Order:
The appeal was dismissed, and the decree for possession was upheld. The appellant was granted time to vacate the premises until 30.6.1999, subject to filing an undertaking and paying occupation charges of Rs. 50,000 per month from 1.10.1998 until vacating the premises. No order as to costs was made.