- (1.) THIS Second Appeal arises out of a suit for eviction which has been decreed by the two courts below. Plaintiff-Defendant No. l has filed a suit on the grounds that he has let out a shop situated at Bhilwara to defendant-respondent No. 2. , Ladu Ram on rent @ Rs. 65/- p. m. on 24th Jan. 1973, evidencing which a rent-note was executed by Ladu Ram on 11. 7. 1973. Ladu Ram has defaulted in paying rent since Feb. 1974 and that he also parted with possession of the suit shop to appellant-defendant without plaintiff's consent and therefore, he is entitled to a decree for eviction.
(2.) DEFENDANTS took the plea that in fact Parasmal appellant was only inducted as a tenant and Ladu Ram was not the tenant. It is the case of defendants that Ladu Ram had executed rent-note dt. 11. 7. 1973 only as a surety for Parasmal and not as a tenant of plaintiff Shiv Lal. Execution of Rent Note by Ladu Ram in favour of Shiv Lal is not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that said rent-note does not show that Ladu Ram is surety and not a tenant. Both the courts have not believed, the evidence led by the defendant no. 2 in support of their defence, that Parasmal was the original tenant, and have come to a concurrent finding that Ladu Ram was the person in whose favour tenancy was created by the plaintiff. As a consequence of this finding both the courts have also come to the conclusion that Ladu Ram has parted with possession of suit shop without the consent of landlord- plaintiff. As a matter of fact it was not the case of defendants at any stage, as an alternative to their aforesaid plea, that even if Ladu Ram is held to be tenant, he parted with possession of the suit shop with consent express or implied of the plaintiff -landlord. Aggrieved with the decree of eviction passed by the two courts below the present appellant Parasmal has filed this Second Appeal on the ground that the findings recorded by the courts below, though the said findings are findings of the fact, are vitiated on the grounds that the same are arrived at by misreading the evidence and by ignoring the relevant evidence on record. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the caveator and perused the judgment of the courts below and also the evidence that was referred to by the learned counsel for the parties from their record and made available for the perusal of the court, about which other counsel had no objection.
(3.) HAVING considered rival contentions and taking into consideration the material placed before me, I am of the opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the fact recorded by the two courts below which can give rise to any substantial question of law for entertaining this Second Appeal. There is no denial of the fact that rent-note in favour of plaintiff was executed by Ladu Ram on 11. 7. 1973 describing himself as tenant of Shivlal in respect of suit-shop and the column about surety in the said document is not filled at all, though there was such a column in the proforma form of rent-note on which the rent note was executed. In the face of this , if the courts below have not believed the evidence led by defendant- Parasmal in this behalf it cannot be said that courts below has committed any error of law in rejecting the plea of defendants about Ladu Ram being a surety & Parasmal being the tenant. The findings on issues no. 1 & 3 are findings of fact and have been arrived at on application of all the evidence on record and is not vitiated on any ground which may give rise to a question of law. Learned counsel for the appellant also urged in the alternative that plaintiff in his statement as PW. l has admitted that he came to know that Ladu Ram has parted with possession of suit-shop in 1974 and from this admission of plaintiff coupled with the fact that suit was filed on 5. 2. 1977 only, it must necessarily be inferred that Ladu Ram parted with the possession of suit shop with the knowledge and consent of the landlord. According to learned counsel for the appellant, defendant no. 2 is entitled to get relief on the admission of plaintiff himself. ;