Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal is arising out of the judgment and decree dated 07.04.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara in Civil Appeal No. 11/1998 "Gopal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Kamla Devi" who dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellants -defendants -tenants and affirmed the judgment and eviction decree dated 18.03.1989 passed by the learned Munsif, Gulabpura in Civil Suit No. 9/1975 "Smt. Kamla Devi Vs. Chunni Lal" by which, the learned Munsif had decreed the suit filed by the respondent -plaintiff -landlord seeking eviction of the appellant -defendant from the suit shop and recovery of arrears of rent.
(2.) THE present second appeal has been filed by the appellants, who were the sons of the original defendant -tenant -Chunni Lal before the learned Trial Court, against the concurrent decree of eviction granted by the Courts below in favour of the plaintiff -landlord. The brief fact of the case are as follows: That the plaintiff -landlord filed the suit (No. 9/1975) aforesaid on 14.01.1975 against the original defendant -tenant -Chunni Lal with the averments that the defendant -tenant had taken the suit shop, which is divided in two portions, situated in the 'Nohra' owned by the plaintiff at the monthly rent of Rs. 71/ - on Samvat Year 2030 and as per term, the rent was to be paid monthly but the defendant failed to pay the rent; that the tenant, without the permission of the landlord, had made material alteration in the suit shop and, therefore, by serving a notice dated 23.09.1974, the plaintiff had terminated the tenancy of the defendant -tenant w.e.f. 15.11.1974. The plaintiff alleged that the said notice was served on the defendant on 26.09.1974. The plaintiff also averred that despite termination of tenancy, the defendant did not vacate the suit shop and, therefore, it was prayed before the learned Trial Court that the arrears of rent with interest and possession of the shop may be given to the plaintiff.
(3.) BY filing a reply to the suit aforesaid, the defendants denied the relationship of landlord -tenant with the plaintiff and also raised various objections but admitted the fact of receiving the notice terminating his tenancy.;