TILAK RAJ Vs. B.L. VERMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. 121 -D of 1961, 306 -D of 1961 and 307 -D of 1961. The point that requires determination in all these petitions is common to all. The point is whether a lease -deed executed on behalf of the partnership binds the partners. In order to arrive at a correct, decision of the matters it is proper to set out the relevant facts.

(2.) B .L. Verma, who is the landlord of the premises consisting of two sets of godowns, executed two documents of lease on the 20th of May, 1952, in favour of Mysore Soap Mills through Jagdish Rai, the managing partner of the firm. In the documents of lease all the other partners are mentioned; they being, besides Jagdish Rai, Kundan Lal, Tilak Raj, Wazir Chand and Madan Lal. As the rent was in arrears from the partnership for various periods, three suits were filed for its recovery by the landlord in the Court of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Delhi, against all the partners including one Vishwa Nath. These suits were decreed by the trial Court against all the partners but were dismissed against Vishwa Nath. One of the partners, namely, Wazir Chand, came up in revision to this Court. Three revision petitions were filed, one against each of the decrees in the suits. The decrees of the trial Court were set aside and the cases were remanded to the trial Court for a fresh decision. The trial Court again decreed the suits against all the partners excepting Wazir Chand. It is against these three decrees that the present petitions for revision have been filed by Tilak Raj. The only contention raised by his counsel is that he being not a party to the lease deeds there is no privity of contract between him and the landlord and, therefore, the suits against him are not maintainable. In support of this contention the learned Counsel relies on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Ragoonathdas Gopaldas and Ors. v. Morarji Jutha and Ors. I.L.R. 16 Bom. 568. This decision does support his contention but will be of no avail as this decision was given long before the Indian Partnership Act (Act No. IX of 1932) was enacted. It will be at this stage proper to set out the relevant provisions of this Act. Section 19 deals with the implied authority of a partner as agent of the firm and is in these terms:

(3.) SECTION 25 deals with the liability of a partner for acts of the firm and is in these terms: