Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE defendant -tenants, legal representatives of late Shri Kishan Singh - original tenant, have filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC on 15/10/1999 being aggrieved by the concurrent decree of eviction by the two courts below in respect of suit premises, a small house situated near Geeta Bhawan, Jodhpur on the grounds of sub -letting by the tenant in favour of defendant No. 10 - Narpat Singh and the tenant acquiring an alternative accommodation for them known as 'Dabi House'. The ground of default in payment of rent was also raised but on account of payment of rent after determination of provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the Rent Control Act, 1950, the said ground does not exist any further for the purpose of this appeal.
(2.) THE relevant findings of the learned trial court on the aforesaid issues are quoted below for ready reference: - The first appeal filed by the tenants also came to be dismissed by the learned first appellate court of Addl. District & Sessions, No. 2, Jodhpur on 17/8/1999 in Civil Appeal No. 2/97 affirmed the findings of the learned trial court in the following manner: -
(3.) WHILE admitting the present second appeal, the coordinate bench of this Court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration of this Court: "Date of order:15.1.2002. Hon'ble Mr. N.P. Gupta, J. Mr. M.C. Bhoot, for the appellant. Mr. J.R. Patel, for the respondent No. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The present appeal involves following substantial questions of law: - (i) Whether the learned lower appellate court has erred in not adjudicating upon the contention raised on the side of the appellant assailing the interlocutory orders of the learned trial court? (ii) Whether the learned lower appellate court has gone wrong in deciding the appeal without deciding application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC? (iii) Whether in the totality of the circumstances, the appellants have been denied reasonable sufficient opportunity of leading evidence despite the defendant/witnesses being present in the court, on the basis of mis -conception? (iv) Whether since Gopal Singh is not impleaded as defendant, and without any order having been obtained by the plaintiff seeking to implead defendant No. 4 Prahalad Singh by his alias name Gopal Singh, the decree is bad, inasmuch as, the summons are said to have been served by publication in local news paper and before such publication, neither such impleadment was got made nor any summons were sent with this alias description? (v) Whether in view of the aforesaid illegalities of procedure, the impugned judgment and decrees are bad? So far as the other substantial questions of law as also framed, arise or not, will be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal. Admit. Issue notice. Mr. Patel appears for the respondent No. 1. Issue notice to the other respondents. Issue notice of the stay application to the other respondents. Meanwhile, execution of the impugned decree shall remain stayed. Sd/ -(N.P. Gupta), J.";