Partnership Act
PRASAD
(Querist) 29 November 2010
This query is : Resolved
One of my relative is a proprietor of a typewriting and shorthand institute. The proprietorship is unregistered and is operating from a tenanted premises. The rent receipt is issued in the name and style of "XXXX classes" instead of the proprietorship name of "XXXX typewriting & shorthand institute" My relative has no issues with it and neither does the landlord. Now my relative wants to convert this proprietorship into registered partnership firm with his 2 sons. Is it possible for him to get the tenanted property into the partnership firm as his capital or asset bought in by him into the firm by mere executiion of the partnership deed or does he need to properly get the tenancy rights transferred into the firm
Does simply converting the proprietorship into partnership and getting tenancy rights into the firm amount to subletting or assignment of tenancy rights to the firm or is it merely his contribution to the partnership firm
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 29 November 2010
Though your relatie can eneter into a parrtnership in stead of the proprietorship and ask for rent receipt on the name of the partnership firm but the tenanted property would retan its status as the same as earlier and can not be treated as sub lettiing.
PRASAD
(Querist) 06 December 2010
Thanks Mr.Barman for your valuable inputs. However still I have a doubt as to whether tommorrow by virtue of payment of rent and being in possession,does his firm become a tenant or his proprietory concern becomes a tenent. In other words, if suppose tommorrow he dies, but the firm continues to occupy the place undisputedly by paying the rent, then does this amount to the firm being a tenent or does it mean that the tenancy was the right of the proprietor and only his legal heir will succeed to it.
PRASAD
(Querist) 06 December 2010
One more importanth question to all you learned friends
- In one of my legal matters, the under a common order the issue of jurisdiction of court under section 9-A and the maintainibility of suit was decided in my favour. Against which the opposite party went to High Court under two different Civil Revision Application - One challenging the jurisdiction and other challenging the maintainibility of firm on grounds that the firm stood dissovled on the grounds of death of partner in case of a partnership firm consisting of only two partners.
The C.R.A. challenging the jurisdiction of the court was decided in my favor against which the opposite party when in a Special Leave Petition. The SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court stating that it was not required to interfere in the matter at this stage & however the order shall not be construed to be a final judgment on the issue and that the applicants who are defendants to the suit shall have right to agitate all the issues including the jurisdiction of the court .
This order of the Supreme Court was not disclosed by them while arguing the CRA on maintainibility in the High Court.
My question now is can we raise any objection that the fact that the Apex Court has itself observed that all the issues including the jurisdiction can be argued than the CRA on the maintainbility also doesn't survive and that the suit should be considerd maintainable and all the issues to be aruged during trial of the suit instead of rejection of plaint and withdrawal of suit
