broke open the lock on the appellant’s counter and committed theft of the electronic accessories including two C.D. players whereupon the appellant reported the matter with the police on 07th February, 2009. According to the appellant, the respondent threatened the appellant on 16th February, 2009 and attempted to throw the appellant’s counter on 21st April, 2009. The appellant instituted a suit, for mandatory and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the said suit, the respondent removed the appellant’s counter in the intervening night of 12th and 13th July, 2009 whereupon the appellant reported the matter with the police on 22nd July, 2009. The appellant amended the suit and substituted the prayer of mandatory and permanent injunction with the prayer for possession of Tehbazari site/shop. 3. The Ld. Trial Court held the suit to be barred by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 as the alleged partnership firm was unregistered. The Ld. Trial Court examined the appellant’s case on merits and held that the alleged partnership deed does not bear the signatures of the respondent. The Ld. Trial Court further held that the Tehbazari rights cannot be let out or sublet as per the terms of the letter dated 27th March, 2003 and, therefore, appellant cannot claim any right for Tehbazari . The Trial Court further held that the appellant’s entitlement to half of the site would have arisen after dissolution of the firm in terms of clause 10 of the partnership deed but the alleged partnership has not been dissolved and, therefore, appellant has no claim even if the partnership deed was held to be genuine. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of hearing that the appellant originally filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction which was converted into a suit for possession. It is submitted that the suit for mandatory and permanent injunction was not hit by Section 69 of the
