Property and tenancy

Can an Unregistered Partnership Firm Claim Statutory Tenancy under the Bombay Rent Act?

By Advocate Sainath Panjagari · SN Law Chambers · 8 October 2026

Yes. An unregistered partnership firm that was in occupation of premises as a licensee on 1 February 1973 can claim statutory tenancy under Section 15-A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The Bombay High Court has held that this is a statutory right. The bar in Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which stops an unregistered firm from suing to enforce a contractual right, does not defeat it.

The ruling is All India Travel Services v. Ashok K. Upadhayay and Others, Civil Revision Application No. 578 of 2024, decided by Justice Arun R. Pedneker on 22 September 2026 (2026:BHC-AS:38799). It is a Maharashtra rent-control decision. It does not create a deemed tenancy under Telangana rent law.

What the Bombay High Court held on unregistered partnership firm statutory tenancy

The Court held that both courts below had erred. The firm, though unregistered on 1 February 1973, was entitled to the protection of Section 15-A. The right under that section is not a contractual right which the firm was trying to enforce. There is no bar in the Partnership Act or the Bombay Rent Control Act which prevents an unregistered firm from becoming the beneficiary of that statutory right.

The Court put the distinction in these words: the rights enforced by the partnership firm are statutory in nature under Section 15-A, and the bar in Section 69(2) has no relevance to enforcement of a statutory right. The right is available to a licensee in occupation, including a partnership firm that was unregistered on the notified date.

Case details

LiveLaw reported the decision on 30 September 2026. Senior Advocate G.S. Godbole, instructed by Advocate J.P. Thakkar, appeared for the applicant. Advocate Rajesh Parab appeared for the respondents.

Section 15-A and Section 69(2) operate in different fields

Section 15-A of the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947 conferred a statutory status. A person who was in occupation of premises, or part of premises, as a licensee on 1 February 1973 was deemed to have become the tenant of the landlord in respect of the premises in his occupation, for the purposes of that Act. The cut-off date is fixed. A later licence does not attract this deeming provision.

Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is a procedural bar of a different kind. No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract may be instituted by or on behalf of a firm against a third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners. The Supreme Court has long held that this bar is attracted when the firm seeks to enforce a contractual right arising in the course of its business, and that it is not a bar to a suit enforcing a statutory right or a common-law right. The leading statement is Haldiram Bhujiawala v. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar, (2000) 3 SCC 250. The Bombay High Court applied that distinction, and also referred to Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property.

The courts below treated non-registration on 1 February 1973 as fatal to the Section 15-A claim. The High Court rejected that reading. Occupation as a licensee on the notified date was the statutory condition. Registration of the firm on that date was not.

What this ruling does not decide

• It does not say that every unregistered firm can sue on a leave-and-licence agreement. A claim to enforce the contract itself can still face Section 69(2).
• It does not apply Section 15-A to a person who was not in occupation as a licensee on 1 February 1973.
• It does not remove the need to prove occupation, the licence, and the identity of the landlord. Those were not the point on which the courts below failed.
• It is not a judgment of the Supreme Court, and it is not a judgment on the Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.

Why the Trial Court and the Appellate Court were set aside

All India Travel Services took the Mayfair Building shop on leave and licence on 30 May 1966, while the firm was unregistered. It remained in occupation on 1 February 1973. It was registered on 3 October 1973. In 1987 it filed R.A.D. Suit No. 4088 of 1987 in the Small Causes Court for a declaration of tenancy and an injunction.

The Trial Court accepted possession under the 1966 licence, but refused the declaration. It held that the firm was unregistered on the notified date and that the suit was not maintainable under Section 69(2). The Appellate Court agreed. The High Court set both judgments aside and allowed the suit in terms of prayer clauses (A), (B) and (E), with a direction that the decree be drawn. The respondents’ request for a stay was refused because the applicant was already in possession.

Does this apply to a tenancy or licence dispute in Telangana?

No, not as a rent-control precedent. Section 15-A is a provision of the Bombay Rent Act. The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 repealed the 1947 Act, with savings for rights that had already accrued, including the status of persons who had become tenants under Section 15-A. That savings scheme is Maharashtra law.

In Telangana, urban building leases are governed by the Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, subject to its exemptions and to premises that fall outside it. A licensee is not deemed to be a tenant merely because the licensee is in occupation. An unregistered partnership firm that sues to enforce a leave-and-licence contract can still meet the Section 69(2) objection. A firm that sues to enforce a right conferred by statute stands on a different footing, and Haldiram Bhujiawala remains the authority to cite. Which side of that line a given plaint falls on is a pleading question, not a label.

For a Medchal or Hyderabad property dispute, the useful point from this ruling is the distinction. Check the statute that creates the right, the date on which the firm was registered, and whether the plaint enforces a contract or a statutory status. SN Law Chambers advises on civil litigation of that kind from Medchal.

Documents and points to check before a firm sues

• Partnership deed, and the entry in the Register of Firms, with the date of registration.
• Names of partners shown in the register on the date of suit. Section 69(2) also looks at whether the persons suing are shown as partners.
• The instrument of occupation: lease, leave and licence, or rent receipts, and who the landlord was.
• Proof of occupation on the statutory date, if a deeming provision such as Section 15-A is invoked. For this section, that date is 1 February 1973.
• Whether the relief is a declaration of statutory status, or specific performance or damages under the contract. The second category is where Section 69(2) usually bites.
• Court: in Mumbai, premises covered by the rent law go to the Small Causes Court. In Telangana, jurisdiction depends on the Act, the specified value, and whether the suit is a commercial dispute.

Common mistakes

• Assuming non-registration bars every suit by a firm. It does not bar dissolution and accounts claims under Section 69(3), and it does not, on Supreme Court law, bar a purely statutory claim.
• Citing Section 15-A for a licence granted after 1 February 1973, or for premises outside the old Bombay Rent Act area.
• Filing in the firm’s name without a partner who is on the register, where the claim is contractual.
• Treating this revision as a binding precedent in a Telangana rent suit.

FAQ

Can an unregistered partnership firm claim tenancy under Section 15-A?

Yes, if it was in occupation as a licensee on 1 February 1973. The Bombay High Court has held that non-registration on that date does not take away the statutory right.

Does Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act bar a rent-control claim?

It bars a suit to enforce a right arising from a contract. The High Court held that a Section 15-A claim is not that kind of suit. A suit to enforce the licence agreement itself can still be objected to if the firm is unregistered.

Must the firm have been registered on 1 February 1973?

No. In this case the firm was unregistered on the notified date and was registered on 3 October 1973. The Court also noted that it was registered when the suit was filed in 1987.

What did the Court do with the suit?

It set aside the Trial Court and Appellate Court orders and allowed R.A.D. Suit No. 4088 of 1987 in terms of prayers (A), (B) and (E). A stay of that order was refused.

Does Section 15-A still matter after the 1999 Maharashtra Act?

The 1947 Act was repealed by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Rights of persons who had already become tenants under Section 15-A were saved. This 2026 revision was decided on Section 15-A in a suit filed in 1987. It is not a new licence-to-tenant window.

Is the ruling binding in Telangana?

No. It binds courts subordinate to the Bombay High Court on this point of Maharashtra law. In Telangana it is at most persuasive on the partnership-law distinction, and only where the right claimed is statutory. The Telangana rent Act has no Section 15-A equivalent.

Can a later purchaser or landlord still seek eviction?

A deemed tenant under Section 15-A is still subject to the grounds of eviction in the rent law. This judgment declared the firm’s statutory status. It did not grant immunity from a lawful eviction proceeding.

How SN Law Chambers can help

SN Law Chambers, at Medchal Check Post, advises on civil suits involving partnership firms, occupation of property, and objections to maintainability. A consultation can cover whether the claim is contractual or statutory, whether Section 69(2) applies, and which court in Telangana has jurisdiction. This note is not a retainer and does not predict the result of any case.

Write to contact@snlawchambers.in or call +91 88969 66663. Related reading: when a civil court can try an issue first as a preliminary issue, and the SN Law Chambers practice page.

Sources and legal authorities

• All India Travel Services v. Ashok K. Upadhayay and Others, Civil Revision Application No. 578 of 2024, Bombay High Court, Justice Arun R. Pedneker, 22 September 2026, 2026:BHC-AS:38799.
• LiveLaw, 30 September 2026: Unregistered partnership firms can claim statutory tenancy rights under the Bombay Rent Act.
• Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 15-A.
• Indian Partnership Act, 1932, Section 69(2) and Section 69(3).
• Haldiram Bhujiawala v. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar, (2000) 3 SCC 250.
• Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property, referred to by the High Court on the limits of Section 69(2).
• Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, repeal and savings of the 1947 Act.
• Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, for the local contrast. It has no Section 15-A deeming clause.

This article is general information on a reported judgment. It is not legal advice. Tenancy, partnership registration and court jurisdiction depend on documents and on the State law that applies. Have a specific notice or plaint read before you act.