DINA NATH Vs. FIRM METRO HOTEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the order of the City Judge at Jammu holding that a suit instituted by the respondent against the petitioner is not hit by the provisions of S. 69 of the Partnership Act.

(2.) THE plaintiff and the defendant constituted a partnership firm doing the business of hoteliers. The Hotel was to be run according to the terms of the partnership in the premises of which the suit property forms part At the time of the partnership agreement the petitioner -defendant was in actual occupation of the suit premises Therefore, an express provision was made in the partnership deed to the effect that in case the defendant continued to be in occupation of the premises for more than three months from the date of the partnership agreement, he will pay as compensation for use and occupation a sum of Rs. 150 per mensem. It appears that differences arose between the two partners which has resulted in the present suit. The plaintiff claimed a decree for ejectment of the defendant from the premises and for arrears of rent and also, for an injunction to restrain the defendant from letting out the premises to any other person.

(3.) THE suit admittedly relates to the premises in which the business of partnership was to be run. It is also directly related to the provisions in the partnership deed itself which provided for payment of a specified sum of Rs. 150 a month by the defendant in case he failed to vacate the premises within three months from the date of execution of the partnership deed. It does not therefore admit of doubt that the suit is inextricably bound up with the partnership itself and arises out of the partnership contract. The firm is admittedly unregistered. The only ground on which the court below found that the suit does not fail within the mischief of S. 69 (1) of the Partnership Act is that the suit is brought by the firm and not by a partner. But a firm is not a juristic person; it is only a convenient and compendious term to denote the partners who have entered into partnership. A suit by or against a firm is essentially a suit by or against the partners constituting the firm. A reference to rules 2 and 6 of 0.30 will serve to clarify this position. Furthermore, rule 1 of 0.30 enables only two or more partners to bring a suit in the name of the firm. A suit by just one partner is not therefore a suit, by the firm contemplated by 0.30. There is no other procedural provision under which a firm can lay a suit. If 0.30 is put aside, the partners will have to bring the action in their individual names.