GAPPULAL GORDHANDAS Vs. CHUNILAL SHYAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are connected revision applications arising out of a suit for fixation of standard rent filed by the respondent under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950.

(2.) The plaintiff is an unregistered firm. The suit was resisted by the landlords inter alia on the ground that in view of the provisions of Section 69 of the Partnership Act the present suit is not maintainable. The trial court upheld this objection and dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned District Judge relying on Sreemannarayanamurthy v. Arjanadu, AIR 1939 Mad 145 held that Section 69 of the Partnership Act was not applicable as the suit was not to enforce a right arising out of any contract but was a suit for enforcing a right conferred by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. 1950. In the Madras case a petition for adjudication of a debtor as an insolvent was moved by a creditor. It was resisted on the ground that the creditor being an unregistered firm the petition was not maintainable. The learned District Judge dismissed the insolvency petition on this ground but the High Court set aside the decision on the following reasoning:

(3.) With all respect I am unable to agree with the above reasoning. Apart from the terms of a particular contract the parties who enter into it are also governed by other laws which create various rights and liabilities. The Insolvency Act gives a right to a creditor to move a petition for the adjudication of a debtor as an insolvent. It is not open to a stranger to move an application for the adjudication of a person as insolvent on the ground that he has committed acts of insolvency. Although this right is conferred by statute only a person who is a creditor can enforce it. In this view of the matter it is a right arising out of a contract.