C. L. SONI, J. This appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed by the original defendants against whom the respondents original plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1428 of 1980 for declaration that the partnership firm is dissolved and for rendition of accounts of the partnership firm. The plaintiffs also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering into the premises bearing Ward No. 7, Nondh No. 4259 and also restraining the defendants from carrying on the business in the said premises. The plaintiffs also prayed for appointment of Receiver for taking over all the properties of the partnership.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the father of the plaintiff named Nanabhai Nathubhai was tenant of the premises bearing Ward No. 7-Nondh No. 4259 in the city of Surat and was doing the business therein. Since, his financial condition was not sound, he decided to do the business in partnership and the partnership was started in the name of Abhay Traders from 19-4-1977 by executing the partnership-deed on the same day. Nanabhai Nathubhai died on 15-9-1980 and as per Condition No. 14 of the Partnership Deed, plaintiff No.2 being the son of deceased-Nanabhai Nathubhai was taken as partner in place of deceased-Nanabhai Nathubhai. The partnership was a partnership at will. For dissolution of the partnership, requirement of one month notice was provided in the deed. The conduct and behaviour of the defendant since was not liked by the deceased-Nanabhai Nathubhai, he wanted to dissolve the partnership but he could not take any action for the said purpose but after his death, since the defendants were not providing details of accounts to the plaintiffs nor permitting the plaintiffs to inspect the accounts of the partnership, the plaintiffs issued legal notice for dissolution of the partnership. As per the condition of partnership, after the notice was served and even as per Sec. 42 of the Partnership Act, after death of one of the partners, partnership stood dissolved. Defendants however did not render accounts to the plaintiffs and continued with the partnership business. As per the condition of the partnership deed, on dissolution of the partnership, rights of tenancy in the property was given to the plaintiffs, and therefore, the plaintiffs have also prayed for permanent injunction in the suit. It is further averred that the defendants have got no right to continue with the tenanted premises of Nanabhai Nathubhai and since the defendants have not acted as per the notice and are likely to manipulate with the accounts of partnership, the suit is filed.

3. The defendants resisted the suit and denied any partnership with the deceased-Nanabhai Nathubhai. It is stated that neither the deceased-Nanabhai Nathubhai nor his heirs had any right or interest in the business of their partnership. It is stated that deceased-Nanabhai Nathubhai was not a partner of the partnership firm but since the deceased was tenant of the premises, the partnership deed was made with deceased-Nanabhai Nathubhai so that the deceased could permit use of the premises for the business of the partnership firm. It is further stated that deceased-Nanabhai Nathubhai had not been involved in the business of partnership but the terms of the partnership clearly go to show that deceased-Nanabhai Nathubhai was getting fixed amount for letting the premises for the business of partnership. Deceased-Nanabhai Nathubhai was never the partner of the partnership firm, therefore, the plaintiffs who are heirs of deceased-Nanabhai Nathubhai are not entitled to ask for accounts of the partnership firm and for dissolution of the partnership firm.

4. The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that deceased Nanabhai Nathubhai was taken as partner in the partnership business and after the death of deceased-Nanabhai Nathubhai, his one of the heirs is also taken as partner in the partnership firm. Learned trial Judge further recorded th