Bombay High Court
ALL INDIA TRAVEL SERVICES THR. ITS PARTNER SHRI. SUBHASH JAINversusASHOK K. UPADHAYAY
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The benefit of Section 15‑A is available to an unregistered partnership firm occupying premises on the notified date, as Section 69(2) bars only the enforcement of contractual rights, not statutory rights.
Summary
All India Travel Services, an unregistered partnership firm, occupied a shop in Mayfair Building under a leave‑and‑license agreement dated 30‑May‑1966 and remained in possession on the statutory date of 1‑Feb‑1973. The firm registered later on 3‑Oct‑1973. The issue was whether the firm could claim the protection of Section 15‑A of the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947 despite Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which bars unregistered firms from suing to enforce contractual rights. The trial and appellate courts held the benefit unavailable, but the High Court reversed, reasoning that Section 69(2) only restricts enforcement of contractual rights, not statutory rights conferred by Section 15‑A. Consequently, the revision application was allowed, setting aside the lower courts’ orders and granting the relief sought by the applicant, while refusing a stay sought by the respondents.
Issues considered
- Whether an unregistered partnership firm occupying premises on 1‑Feb‑1973 can avail the benefit of Section 15‑A of the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947.
- Whether Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 bars such a firm from enforcing the statutory right under Section 15‑A.
- Whether the lower courts erred in interpreting the interaction between the two statutes.
Legislation cited
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 — s. 15-A
- Indian Partnership Act, 1932 — s. 69, 69(2)
Subjects
- tenancy
- licensee
- Section 15-A
- unregistered partnership
- statutory right
- Bombay Rent Control Act
- Indian Partnership Act
- revision
- leave and license agreement
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
SUFIYAN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
EHTESHAM
SUFIYAN
EHTESHAM SYED
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SYED Date:
2026.09.22
20:17:46
+0530
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 578 OF 2024
All India Travel Services
a Partnership Firm, having its
Registered Office at – 75-C,
Ground Floor, Shop, Mayfair Building
Veer Nariman Road, Bombay-400020
Represented by it Partnership
Shri. Subhash Jain … Applicant
(Original Plaintiff)
VERSUS
1) Ashok K. Upadhayay
(Deleted as per order dated 19.11.2024)
Indian, aged about 36 years
Residing at 52, Apurva
5, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai 400026.
2) Miss. Manju Upadhayay
Indian, aged about 32 years
Residing at – Ivanhoe, G. Bhosale Marg
Mumbai 400 021.
3) Sunil Upadhayay
Indian, aged about 24 years
Residing at – Ivanhoe, G. Bhosale Marg
Mumbai 400 021.
4) Messrs Jamnagar Investment Co.
Pvt. Ltd. A private Limited
(Deleted as per order dated 19.11.2024)
Liability
Company having its registered office
at Union Co-operative Insurance Building,
1/12
CRA.578.2024.odt Sufiyan Syed - PA
23, Sir P. M. Road, Fort,
Mumbai 400001.
5) M/s. K. C. Chheda & Co.,
A firm, registered under the
Indian Partnership Act,
having their office at
Western India House, P. M. Road,
Mumbai 400001. … Respondents
(Original Defendants)
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13110 OF 2025
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 578 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13111 OF 2025
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 578 OF 2024
Senior Adv. G. S Godbole i/b. J. P. Thakkar, Advocate for the Applicant.
Adv. Rajesh Parab, Advocate for the Respondents.
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
RESERVED ON : 18.08.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 22.09.2026
JUDGMENT :
1. The short issue that arises for consideration is whether the benefit of
Section 15(A) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates
Control Act, 1947 (for brevity, Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947) can be
granted to an unregistered partnership firm in occupation of the tenanted
2/12
CRA.578.2024.odt Sufiyan Syed - PA
premises as a licensee as on the notified date of 01.02.1973 in view of the
bar contained in Section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
2. The facts giving rise to the above noted questions of law in brief is
summarized as under :
3. That the Applicant partnership firm was unregistered when the leave
and license agreement was executed on 30.05.1966 between the tenant and
sub-tenant (Applicant) and the Applicant continued to be in occupation of
the tenanted premises on 01.02.1973 and throughout. The Applicant firm
was subsequently registered on 03.10.1973. Section 15-A of the Bombay
Rent Control Act, 1947, recognizes tenancy rights in favour of the person
who is in occupation of the leased premises as a licensee on the notified date
i.e. 01.02.1973.
4. In the instant case, S. T. Upadhayay was the original tenant of the suit
premises. He expired on 30.09.1986. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are his legal
heirs and Defendant No. 4 is the original landlord of the suit building.
Defendant No. 5 is the present landlord who has purchased the suit building
from Defendant No. 4.
5. The Applicant’s/Plaintiff’s case, in the plaint, is that the Applicant is a
registered partnership firm. The Applicant claimed to be in exclusive
occupation and possession of the suit premises by virtue of leave and license
3/12
CRA.578.2024.odt Sufiyan Syed - PA
agreement executed by Original tenant, S. T. Upadhayay in the year 1966 in
its favour. The Applicant was paying the license fees which was increased
from time to time and was Rs. 2,500/- per month at the time of filing of the
suit. The Plaintiff paid to the original tenant till September 1987, after the
death of the Original tenant to the Legal Representatives of the deceased
tenant i.e. Defendant No. 1 to Defendant No. 3. The Plaintiff was initially
doing business in the name and style of ‘All India Travel Services’ and now
carrying on the business as general Sales Agents of Iraq Airways.
6. It is the case of the Plaintiff that some unknown persons tried to take
forcible possession of the suit premises. As such the Plaintiff filed the
R.A.D. Suit No. 4088 of 1987 seeking declaration of tenancy and injunction.
Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 filed their written statements denying allegations of
attempt of forcible dispossession, they contended that their father, S. T.
Upadhayay was the tenant of the entire ground floor on the west side of their
suit building and by virtue of Leave and License Agreement dated
30.05.1966, only a part of suit premises was given to the Plaintiff through its
purported partner Charandas Jain.
7. Defendant No. 5 also filed his written statement and denied the leave
and license agreement executed by the tenants with Plaintiff. It is also stated
that the original tenant S. T. Upadhayay illegally and wrongfully sublet the
4/12
CRA.578.2024.odt Sufiyan Syed - PA
suit premises or major portion of the suit premises to the Plaintiff under the
alleged leave and license agreement.
8. Independently, Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 has also filed R.A.E. Suit No.
367/1471 of 1978 against the S. T. Upadhayay and the present Applicant /
Original Plaintiff for eviction from the suit premises i.e. a shop situated on
the Ground Floor of Mayfair Building, 75, C Veer Nariman Road, Fort,
Mumbai – 400 020.
9. After considering the rival pleadings and the evidence on record, the
Trial Court in the instant case framed following issues and answered them
accordingly :-
Sr. No. Issues Findings
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that since In the affirmative.
1966, the plaintiffs were in possession of
the suit premises as a license under leave
and license agreement ?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get In the negative.
declaration of his tenancy in respect of
suit premises ?
3) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the In the negative
injunction as sought for ?
4) What order and decree ? As per final order.
Sr No. Additional Issues Findings
1) Whether Plaintiff’s suit is maintainable ? In the negative
2) Whether Plaintiff’s firm was In the affirmative
unregistered, as alleged by defendant ?
5/12
CRA.578.2024.odt Sufiyan Syed - PA
The Trial Court accordingly dismissed the Suit.
10. The Plaintiff thereafter filed an R. Appeal No. 290 of 2015 in R. A. D.
Suit No. 4088 of 1987. The Appellate Court formulated following points for
consideration and rendered its findings thereon as quoted below :
Sr.No Points Findings
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that since 1966, the Yes
plaintiffs were in possession of the suit premises as
a licensee under leave and license agreement ?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get declaration of No
his tenancy in respect of suit premises ?
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as No
sought for ?
4. Whether plaintiff’s suit is maintainable ? No
5. Whether plaintiff’s firm was unregistered, as alleged Yes
by defendant ?
6. Whether the impugned Judgment and decree of the No.
trial court needs interference in the appeal ?
7. What order and decree ? Appeal
dismissed as
per final order.
11. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has held that the
Plaintiff was in possession of the premises from 1966 under a leave and
license agreement. However, it held that the Plaintiff (sub-tenant) is not
entitled for declaration of its tenancy as the Plaintiff firm was not registered
6/12
CRA.578.2024.odt Sufiyan Syed - PA
on the notified date i.e. 01.02.1973 and was later on registered on
03.10.1973.
12. In these facts situation, the question that arises for consideration is as
noted in Paragraph No. 1. The relevant provisions of Section 15-A of the
Bombay Rent Act and Section 69 and 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act,
1932, are quoted below :
Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 : Effect of non-
registration :-
Section 69
“(1) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or
conferred by this Act shall be institutes 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.”
Section 15-A of the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947 :
Section 15-A
“(1) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in the Act
or anything contrary in any other law for the time being in force,
or in any contract, where any person is on the 1st day of February
1973 in occupation of any premises, or any part thereof which is
not less than a room, as a licensee be shall on that date be
deemed to have become, for the purpose of this Act, the tenant of
7/12
CRA.578.2024.odt Sufiyan Syed - PA
the landlord, in respect of the premises or part thereof, in his
occupation.
2) The provisions of sub-section shall not affect in any
manner the operation of sub-section of section 15 after the date
aforesaid.”
13. The bar contend under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act,
1932, is to enforce a right arising from a contract and it provides that no suit
to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by
or on behalf of firm against the third party unless the firm is registered and
the persons suing are or have been show in the register of firms as a partner
in the firm.
14. Section 15-A of the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947, grants a
statutory protection to any person who is in occupation of any premises or
any part thereof on 01.02.1973 as a licensee, and he shall be deemed to have
become the tenant of the landlord in respect of the premises or a part thereof
in occupation for the purpose of the Rent Act. The statutory right conferred
under Section 15-A is not a mere contractual right which the partnership firm
seeks to enforce. There is no bar under the Partnership Act or under the
Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947, which prohibits the unregistered
partnership firm from becoming the beneficiary of a statutory right as is
made available under Section 15-A of the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947.
15. The partnership firm/Applicant is found in possession of the suit
8/12
CRA.578.2024.odt Sufiyan Syed - PA
premises under a leave and license agreement as on the notified date i.e.
01.02.1973. Thus the reasoning of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court
that the firm was not registered on the notified date i.e. 01.02.1973 and as
such cannot claim the benefit of Section 15-A of the Bombay Rent Control
Act, 1947, in view of the bar contained in Section 69(2) of the Partnership
Act is erroneous. Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act merely prohibits
filing of a suit on behalf of an unregistered partnership firm to enforce a
contractual right against a third party.
16. In the instant case, the rights enforced by the Partnership Firm are
statutory in nature under Section 15-A of the Bombay Rent Act. The bar
contained under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act has no relevance for
enforcement of a statutory right and the partnership firm through
unregistered as on 01.02.1973 is entitled to the protection of Section 15-A of
the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947. The right confined under Section 15-A
of the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947 is available to a licensee in
occupation, including a partnership firm although unregistered on the
notified date. It is pertinent to note that as on the date of filing of the suit,
the Applicant/Partnership Firm was registered.
17. The Division Bench of Madras High Court in case of Dungarsi
Ranchhodas Jayesh Niwas, Kozhikode vs. Moolji Visanji reported in AIR
9/12
CRA.578.2024.odt Sufiyan Syed - PA
2004 Ker 314 considered similar issue, in a case, when an Eviction Petition
was filed on behalf of an unregistered partnership firm represented by a
partner and the question raised was as to whether the Rent Control Petition is
hit by Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act ? The Court held that Section 11
(1) of the Rent Control Act enables the landlord to prefer an application for
eviction on specified grounds. The non-obstante clause in the Section 11(1)
of the Rent Act overrides the permission of Section 69(2) of the Indian
Partnership Act, 1932. The Court held that the right given to the landlord to
file an eviction petition is a statutory right conferred under the Rent Act and
is not controlled by any other law. The Court held the suit maintainable.
18. The Supreme Court in the case of Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. Vs.
Ganesh Property reported in MANU/SC/0595/1998 has held that the bar
contain under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, is to institute a
suit on behalf of an unregistered firm against a third person to enforce a
contractual right and not a statutory right. If the suit simplicitor is based on a
covenant in the agreement for enforcement of a clause in the agreement
against the third party, the same would be barred under Section 69(2) of the
Indian Partnership Act, 1932, unless the firm is registered on the date of
filing of the suit. However, the bar does not apply for enforcement of
statutory right against a third person.
10/12
CRA.578.2024.odt Sufiyan Syed - PA
For ready reference para 26 of Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. (supra) is quoted
as below :
“26. On the facts of the present case it has to be held that
there is no further locus poeneteatiae given to the tenant to
continue to remain in possession after the determination of
lease by efflux of time on the basis of any such contrary
express term in the lease. Consequently, it is legal
obligation flowing from Section 180(g) of the Act which
would get squarely attracted on the facts of the present case
and once the suit is also for enforcement of such a legal
right under the law of the land available to the landlord it
cannot be said to be that enforcement of such right arises
out of any of the express terms of the contract which would
in turn get visited by the bar of Section 69(2) of the
Partnership Act. Consequently it has to be held that when
paragraph 2 of the plaint in addition made a reference to
right of the plaintiff to get possession under the law of the
land, the plaintiff was seeking enforcement of its legal right
to possession against the erstwhile lessee following from the
provisions of Section 108(g) read with section 111(a) of the
Property Act which in turn also sought to enforce the
corresponding statutory obligation of the defendant under
the very same statutory provisions. So far as this part of the
cause of action is concerned it stands completely outside the
sweep of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act.The net result
to this discussion is that the present suit can be said to be
partly barred by Section 69 Sub-section (2) so far as it
sought to enforce the obligation of the defendant under
Clauses 14 and 17 of the contract of lease read with the
relevant recitals in this connection as found in paragraph
2 of the plaint. But it was partly not barred by Section 69
Sub-section (2) in so far as the plaintiff based a part of its
cause of Action also on the law of the land, namely,
Transfer of Property Act where under the plaintiff had
sought to enforce its statutory right Under Section 108(q)
read with Section 111(a) of the Property Act. Enforcement
of the right had nothing to do with the earlier contract
which had stood determined by efflux of time. The first
11/12
CRA.578.2024.odt Sufiyan Syed - PA
point for determination therefore, has accordingly, to be
held partly in favour of the plaintiff and partly in favour of
the defendant. As the decree for possession is passed on the
basis of both parts of causes of Action, even if it is not
supportable on the first part, it will remain well sustained
on the second part of the very same cause of Action.”
19. Both the Courts have erred in interpreting the provision of Section
69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and the benefit available to a
licensee in occupation under Section 15-A of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947.
Accordingly, the Judgment and order passed by both the Courts are set
aside.
20. The R. A. D. Suit No. 4088 of 1987 filed before the Small Causes
Court is allowed in terms of Prayer Clauses (A), (B) & (E). The Decree be
drawn accordingly.
(ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.)
21. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent seeks stay of the order
passed today. No stay can be granted as the Applicant/tenant is in possession
of the property. Therefore the prayer for stay is refused.
(ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.)
12/12
CRA.578.2024.odt Sufiyan Syed - PA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.