The Bombay High Court has held that an unregistered partnership firm can claim the statutory protection available to a licensee under Section 15-A of the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947, even if the firm was unregistered on the notified date of February 1, 1973. The Court ruled that the restriction under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act does not apply when the right being enforced is statutory rather than contractual.
Background
The case arose from a long-standing dispute involving All India Travel Services and the premises at Mayfair Building, Mumbai. The firm had entered into a leave and licence agreement with the original tenant on May 30, 1966 and continued occupying the premises on February 1, 1973. At that time, the partnership firm was unregistered. It was subsequently registered on October 3, 1973.
The firm sought recognition of its tenancy rights. However, the Trial Court held that although the firm had been in possession since 1966 under the leave and licence arrangement, its suit was not maintainable and it was not entitled to a declaration of tenancy. The Appellate Court upheld those findings.
Justice Arun R. Pedneker examined the relationship between Section 15-A of the Bombay Rent Control Act and Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act. Section 69(2) restricts an unregistered partnership firm from filing a suit to enforce a contractual right against a third party.
The High Court, however, distinguished a contractual claim from a statutory protection. The Court noted:
"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 Court further held that the right claimed by the partnership firm under Section 15-A was statutory in nature. Therefore, Section 69(2) had no application to the enforcement of that right. The Court also noted that the firm had become registered by the time the suit was filed.
Justice Pedneker held that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had erred in interpreting Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act and Section 15-A of the Bombay Rent Control Act. The judgments of both courts were accordingly set aside. The High Court allowed R.A.D. Suit No. 4088 of 1987 in terms of prayer clauses A, B and E.
The request for stay of the High Court’s order was also refused.
Case Details:
Case Title: All India Travel Services v. Ashok K. Upadhayay and Others
Case Number: Civil Revision Application No. 578 of 2024
Judge: Justice Arun R. Pedneker
Decision Date: 22 September 2026
