Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE appellant/defendant, Smt. Bismillaha W/o. late Sh. Noor Mohd. Kunjada, has preferred the present second appeal aggrieved by the judgment and eviction decree dated 21.02.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Udaipur, whereby the appeal (Civil Appeal No. 34/2007 -Laxminarayan & Ors. Vs. Smt. Bismillaha) filed by the respondents/plaintiffs came to be allowed while reversing the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Udaipur City (South), Udaipur in Civil Suit No. 33/2002 - Laxmi Nararyan & Ors. Vs. Smt. Bismillaha, whereby the suit for eviction filed the respondents/plaintiffs was dismissed.
(2.) THE respondents/plaintiffs filed suit for eviction as well as for arrears of rent of shop was let out to the appellant/defendant by the father of the plaintiffs (late Sh. Purshottam Lal Sharma). A rent -note dated 07.01.1985 was also executed by the appellant in favour of respondent No. 3/plaintiff -Hikmichand at a monthly rent of Rs. 200/ - and Rs. 20/ - for electricity charges. The appellant/defendant stopped to pay the monthly rent since 07.09.1985, therefore, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs for seeking eviction of the appellant/defendant on the ground of bonafide need of plaintiffs, claiming arrears of rent and on the ground of subletting. Learned counsel for the appellant/tenant submitted that the lower appellate court below has erred in granting eviction decree in favour of respondents/plaintiffs, as the ground of subletting was not proved and in fact the appellant being 80 -85 years of age was doing business with the help of servants, which cannot be termed as subletting. He further submitted that the earlier suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking eviction was dismissed, therefore, the present subsequent suit has wrongly been decreed by the appellate court below.
(3.) THE learned trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit vide judgment and decree dated 10.08.2007 in the following manner: - ;