1. This is plaintiffs' revision against the order of the Munsiff, Jammu dated 21-7-1971 whereby a preliminary issue was decided in favour of respondent No. 1.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the plaintiffs, who had entered into a partnership with the defendants to run a business as a dealer in radios and sewing machines in the name and style of India Radios, having fallen out, had filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. The defendants filed a written statement admitting the partnership between the parties and almost agreed that the partnership may be dissolved and account should be taken. The only point of contest raised was that the partnership business was carried on in a shop belonging to Khukhran Bradari, Jammu, situated on Rai Tilak Road, Jammu, and defendant No. 1 claimed that the shop had been taken on rent by him so at the time of dissolution the shop and its tenancy should revert back to him. On this dispute between the parties the only issue in the nature of a preliminary issue was raised which is as follows:—

"Whether Abnash Chander defendant, is the sole tenant of the suit shop? O.P.D"

3. The trial court by its order dated 23-11-. 1970 decided this issue in favour of the defendant respondent No. 1 and ultimately passed a preliminary decree on 26-12-1970. The plaintiffs went up in appeal against that preliminary decree before the Appellate Court of the Sub Judge (CJM) Jammu who by his order dated 27-2-1971 remanded the case to the trial court with a direction that defendant No. 2 who was the appellant before him should be given an opportunity to lead evidence in the case and the matter could be decided afresh.

4. Pursuant to the above direction the parties led evidence and the Munsiff vide the impugned order again decided the said issue in favour of defendant-respondent No. 1. It is against that order that the present revision has been filed by the plaintiffs.

5. At the time of the hearing Mr. Thakur appearing for respondent No. 1 raised a preliminary objection and contended that the impugned order amounts to passing of the final decree and the revision was not competent. The plaintiff should have filed an appeal before the Sub Judge (C.J.M), Jammu as they previously did.

6. Mr. Kotwal, appearing for the petitioners, controverted this position and contended that rightly or wrongly the Munsiff followed the procedure that he decided the issue as a preliminary issue and then passed a preliminary decree previously by a separate order. This time also in a similar manner he has decided the preliminary issue and he has to pass a preliminary decree separately. He further contended that the reason given by the Munsiff that the previous order dated 26-12-1970 still stands is also not correct, because the appellate court had set aside the preliminary decree and the said orders.

7. I have considered the respective contentions and I am of the opinion that Mr. Kotwal is right in saving that the Munsiff has decided the preliminary issue only and had to Pass a preliminary decree as he previously passed by a separate order and the revision was under the circumstances maintainable. In fact after this discussion at the Bar Mr. Thakur also almost withdrew this objection and agreed that the revision should be heard on merits, and decided and so did the counsel for the parties argue this revision on merits at length.

8. The main attack of Mr. Kotwal against the finding of the trial court was that in the instant case the parties agreed by the partnership deed that the tenancy of the shop in question was of the partnership firm and the rent had also to be paid by the partnership firm. As such even if the tenancy rights had at some time been granted to respondent No. 1 the said rights were thrown into the partnership assets and henceforth they became the partnership property. He further contended that according to Section 14 all the property and assets of the firm belong to the firm and they