J.P.JAIN, J. - (1.) MADAN Lal defendant has challenged the appellate decree paseed by the Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu, Camp Sikar dated 20.10.73 by which the suit of the respondents No. 1 and 2 for eviction and arreais of rent has been decreed.
(2.) PANNALAL and Nathumal own the suit shop in the town of Fatehpur District Sikar. In the suit it was claimed by them that the suit shop was rented out to Satya Narayan defendant No. 1 at the monthly rent of Rs. 60/ - for a period of 9 months and a rent note was executed on 13 -5 -66. According to the plaintiffs the rent was payable in accordance with English Calendar month starting from 13 -5 -66. The rent was not paid by the defendant Satya Narayan and instead he sub -let the shop to Madan Lal defendant, who is running a Barber's business in the suit shop. The plaintiffs determined the tenancy of Satya Narayan by serving notices on bothh Satya Narayan and Madan Lal. On their having failed to surrender the possession of the suit shop, the present suit out of which this appeal has arisen, was instituted on 2 -6 -67 in the Court of Munsif, Sikar. A deciree for Rs. 720/ - was claimed an arrears of rent, Rs. 40/ - by way ot damages for use and occupation of the shop till the institution of the suit. A decree for eviction was also sought along with the prayer that damage a in the sum of Rs. 2/ - per day for use and occupation of the suit shop be granted from the date of the suit till the delivery of posession of the suit shop.
(3.) SATYA Narayan did not put in appearance and did not file the reply. The suit was, however, resisted by Madan Lal and his case in short was that he was directly a tenant, of the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs. 20/ - per month of the suit shop for last seven years. He also alleged that he paid rent upto November, 1966 but from December, 66 the plaintiffs did not accept the the rent even when it was sent by money order. He denied to be the subtenant on the suit shop through Satya Narayan. On the same terms he replied to the notice of the plaintiffs. The Munsif dismissed the sun by his order dated 30 -9 -72. Against this decree Pannalal alone went n appeal impleading Nathmal as proforma respondent. The learned appellate Court held that the rent note Ex. 1 dated 13 -5 -65 is proved to have been executed by Satya Narayan. He held Satya Narayan to be the tenant. After discussing evidence, he came to the conclusion that Madan Lal has been occupying the suit shop as a Sub -tenant of Satya Narayan. In the result the first Appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Judge and decree was passed against Satya Narayan and Madan Lal for eviction and for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 720/ - in favour of the appellant. He also ordered that the appellant shall get damages for u e and occupation of the shop at the rate of Rs. 60/ - per month till the suit shop is vacated. This decree is subject matter of appeal before me.;