All India Travel Services Wins Rent Control Benefit

Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 22 September 2026

Applicant: All India Travel Services, a partnership firm (registered office: 75‑C, Ground Floor, Shop, Mayfair Building, Veer Nariman Road, Bombay‑400020), represented by Shri Subhash Jain.
Respondents:

1. Ashok K. Upadhayay (deleted as per order dated 19.11.2024)

2. Miss Manju Upadhayay

3. Sunil Upadhayay

4. Jamnagar Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. (deleted as per order dated 19.11.2024)

5. M/s K. C. Chheda & Co.

Background: The original tenant, S. T. Upadhayay, executed a leave‑and‑license agreement with the applicant on 30 May 1966, granting occupation of part of the ground‑floor shop in Mayfair Building. The applicant occupied the premises continuously and paid license fees, which were Rs. 2,500 per month at the time of filing. S. T. Upadhayay died on 30 September 1986; his legal heirs (respondents 1‑3) succeeded him. The original landlord (respondent 4) sold the building to respondent 5.
Procedural History: The applicant filed R.A.D. Suit No. 4088 of 1987 seeking declaration of tenancy and injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the applicant was in possession but not entitled to tenancy because the partnership was unregistered on the notified date (01‑Feb‑1973). The appellate court affirmed the dismissal. The applicant appealed (Civil Revision Application No. 578 of 2024) arguing that Section 15‑A of the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947, confers statutory tenancy rights irrespective of registration status.

Statutory Framework:
Section 15‑A, Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947 deems any person occupying premises as a licensee on 01‑Feb‑1973 to be a tenant for the purposes of the Act.
Section 69(2), Indian Partnership Act, 1932 bars a suit to enforce a contractual right by an unregistered partnership but does not bar enforcement of a statutory right.
Court’s Analysis:
The partnership was in possession on the notified date (01‑Feb‑1973) under a valid leave‑and‑license agreement.
The benefit under Section 15‑A is a statutory right, not a contractual right; therefore, Section 69(2) does not preclude the partnership from claiming it.
The trial and appellate courts erred in linking the registration requirement to the statutory protection of Section 15‑A.
Precedent: Dungarsi Ranchhodas Jayesh Niwas v. Moolji Visanji (AIR 2004 Ker 314) held that statutory eviction rights under the Rent Act are not subject to Section 69(2). Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property (MANU/SC/0595/1998) clarified that Section 69(2) bars suits for contractual rights only, not statutory rights.
Conclusion: The partnership, though unregistered on 01‑Feb‑1973, is entitled to the protection of Section 15‑A. The earlier judgments are set aside.

The R.A.D. Suit No. 4088 of 1987 is allowed in terms of Prayer Clauses (A), (B) & (E).
A decree shall be drawn accordingly.
The respondent’s application for a stay of the order is refused, confirming the applicant’s continued possession of the shop in Mayfair Building.

Topics: Rent Control, Partnership Law