respondent set up a case that demised premises is in the possession of the firm known as M/s Faquir Chand Krishan Dass & Company, but such plea of him does not mean that demised premises were actually rented to aforesaid firm, rather eviction petition clearly reveals that demised premises were actually rented to Brij Mohan Sharma not to the firm. If reply is perused in its entirety, it nowhere suggest that demised premises were actually rented to M/s Faquir Chand Krishan Dass & Company, rather specific plea is that demised premises are in possession of M/s Faquir Chand Krishan Dass & Company and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondent while impleading Brij Mohan Sharma as tenants to whom actually demised premises were rented. Though, there appears to be merit in the contention of learned counsel for the respondent-landlrod that there is no relationship interse petitioner and respondentlandlord, but even otherwise partnership deed placed on record nowhere suggests that same was registered, if it is so, petitioner who claims himself to be partner is estopped under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, to file any case. Moreover, in terms of Section 42 of the Indian Partnership Act, contract between the partners of firm is dissolved with the death of the partner. In the case at hand, admittedly both the original partners namely, Sh. Krishan Dass and Sh. Kuldeep Chand have expired and there is no specific clause in
