What is the effective date of a partner's retirement under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932—from the date of information to the Registrar of Firms or the date mentioned in the information? [17200914190025] (!) [17200914190008] Whether the High Court can determine the question of partial eviction in a second appeal under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, even if not considered by courts below? (!) [17200914190020][17200914190021]

Key Points: - The second appeal challenges the eviction decree based on the landlord-respondent's retirement from the partnership firm and bona fide need for the suit shop. (!) [17200914190002] - The tenant-appellant disputed the retirement, claiming the respondent continued as partner, supported by bills, photos, and ration card application. [17200914190011][17200914190013] - Court held partner's retirement effective from the date in the retirement deed (Ex.1, 10.12.91), not the later notice to Registrar under Sections 32, 59, 63 of Partnership Act. (!) [17200914190008] - Previous eviction suit by prior owner was consolidated but not contested post-sale, not affecting the present suit's outcome. [17200914190009] - Documentary evidence (bills Ex.A/10, A/11; photos Ex.A/8,12,13; ration card app Ex.A/15) does not disprove retirement or bona fide need. [17200914190013] - Purchasing shop with sitting tenant does not negate bona fide reasonable necessity. [17200914190014] - Partial eviction not feasible for single shop (38' x 7'8", non-corner); High Court can decide based on record without remand. [17200914190021] - Appeal dismissed; tenant granted 2 months to vacate. [17200914190024]

What is the effective date of a partner's retirement under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932—from the date of information to the Registrar of Firms or the date mentioned in the information? [17200914190025][p_14][17200914190008]

Whether the High Court can determine the question of partial eviction in a second appeal under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, even if not considered by courts below? [p_10][17200914190020][17200914190021]