(1.) The appellant-original plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed by the District Court, Surendranagar, dtd. 19/6/1996 in Civil Appeal No.21 of 1992, whereby, it was held that the plaintiff-appellant is tenant having exclusive tenancy rights pertaining to suit shop and rest of the prayer for permanent injunction came to be rejected by the Appellate Court, the plaintiff-appellant has preferred the present Second Appeal.
(2.) The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants before the Trial Court. For the brevity and convenience, the parties are referred to in this judgment as per the character assigned to them i.e. of the plaintiff and the defendants.
(3.) The appellant - original plaintiff had instituted a Regular Civil Suit No.287 of 1985 against the respondents-original defendants herein, inter alia, praying for declaration and for permanent injunction in respect of the shop situated near Gate Station, Surendranagar. It was the case of the plaintiff that he was a tenant of the suit shop and subsequently he entered into partnership firm with defendant Nos.1 and 2 and one Shantilal Maganlal, whereby, the defendants were permitted to use the suit shop as a 'licensee/permissive user' to carry on the business of selling clothes in the suit shop and in respect thereof, a Deed of Partnership was entered into between them on 20/8/1977. The said partnership between the parties was the "Partnership at Will", and, the firm was an unregistered one. Thereafter, one of the partners of the firm, namely Shantilal Maganlal expired and as a result thereof administrator of the family of the late Shantilal Maganlal i.e. the defendant No.3 was inducted in the business of the partnership as a partner and consequently the firm continued with its business by constituting a new partnership firm by a fresh deed of partnership which was an unregistered one and the partnership was the "Partnership at Will".