- (1.) The facts giving rise to this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure are as under :- The plaintiff-respondent Mohan Lal had instituted a suit against Bansilal-appellant and Ghevar Chand (since deceased) for a decree of eviction in respect of the shop in dispute on the grounds, inter alia, of subletting. It was alleged that the shop in dispute had been let out by the plaintiff to Shri Amolackchand, the late father of Banshilal and, after the death of Amolackchand, Banshilal had sublet the shop in dispute to Ghevar Chand without the consent or permission of the plaintiff and Ghevar Chand was carrying on business therein. The suit was contested by the appellant and Ghevar Chand, who filed their joint written statement denying the allegations of subletting. It was pleaded that Amolackchand and Ghevar Chand were the joint tenants of the shop in dispute and that they were carrying on family business therein and, after the death of Amolackchand, Banshilal's son Sardar Mal alias Paras Mal and Ghevar Chand were carrying on business in the shop in dispute and there was no case of subletting. The learned trial court, after recording the evidence produced by the parties and hearing their learned counsel, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The appeal was heard by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, who, vide the impugned judgment dated 6-3-1981, has come to the conclusion that Banshilal had sub-let the shop in dispute to Ghevar Chand without the consent of the plaintiff and, consequently, decree for eviction has been passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant-appellant (Ghevar Chand having died and his name having been scored off during the pendency of the suit as he left behind no heir. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant-appellant has approached this Court by filing this appeal.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant has contended that the learned first appellate Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the shop in dispute had been sub-let by the appellant to Ghevar Chand as no evidence was produced by the plaintiff to show that Ghevar Chand was paying any rent to Banshilal and further that there was no evidence to show that Ghaver Chand was in exclusive possession of the shop in dispute.;