Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE appellant is aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2006 passed by the trial court and dismissal of his appeal by judgment and decree dated 22.2.2010. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff/landlady's own case was that she and her husband had three properties in the city of Jodhpur and those properties have been distributed between their three sons and the property in question fell in the share of her son for whose need, the suit for eviction was filed. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that once landlady admitted that she transferred the property to her son, she cannot maintain the suit as she is not the owner of the premises after the premises has been transferred to her son.
(3.) I considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case as well as the impugned judgments.;