A.A.KHAN,J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Ordinance of 1949') from the judgment dated December 1, 1993 of a learned Single Judge of this Court confirming the decree for eviction of the appellant on the ground of sub-letting/parting with possession as set out in Section 13(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act of 1950').
(2.) THE premises in suit is a three room flat with a passage, a bath, a w.c., a store and open space in a building known as 'Jaipuria Mansion' situate at Mirza Ismail Road, Jaipur. This flat originally belonged to a Company, M/s. Bharat Agencies Ltd. which later on stood amalgamated with another Company called M/s. Jaipur Stores Pvt. Ltd., which was subsequently changed to M/s. Jaipur Stores Pvt. Ltd. the predecessor in title of the present respondent. This flat was on the tenancy of the appellant. Under a rent note executed on April 16, 1956 between M/s. Bharat Agencies Ltd. and the appellant the suit premises was continued in the possession of the appellant as tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 125/- for a period of 11 months. Clause 10 of this rent note provided that the lessee shall not assign, sub-let or part with the possession of the leased premises without the consent of the lessor in writing. The appellant allegedly violated certain conditions of the rent note. Therefore, M/s. Rajputana Stores Pvt. Ltd., the original plaintiff, filed a suit for eviction of the appellant on July 16, 1976 on the grounds of reasonable and bona fide personal necessity, material alteration in and substantial damage to the leased property, default in payment of rent and sub-letting/parting with possession of the suit premises. The trial Court, the Addl. Distt. Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide his judgment and decree dated August 13, 1985 decreed plaintiffs suit for eviction on the grounds of reasonable and bona fide personal necessity of the landlord and sub- letting/parting with possession of the leased premises by the appellant to M/s. Traders and Miners Ltd., Jaipur and M/s. Aditya Mills Ltd. The appellant preferred an appeal to this Court under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal was heard by the learned Single Judge, who by his impugned judgment dismissed the ground of personal necessity of the landlord which failed due to the transfer of the suit premises by the original plaintiff in favour of the present respondent but confirmed the decree of the trial Court for eviction of the appellant on the ground of sub-letting/parting with possession.
(3.) MR . Paras Khuad, learned counsel for the appellant urged that the judgment under appeal was bad in law inasmuch as the factual matrix was not correctly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, in the light of the concept of sub- tenancy or parting with exclusive possession of the leased premises by the appellant in favour of the aforesaid two Companies. The learned counsel justified the maintainability of the appeal on the reasoning that this Appellate Bench would only be exercising its power in continuation and completion of the jurisdiction of this Court to hear an appeal and not for a second time. Reliance was placed on the case of Budge Budge Municipality v. Mongru Mia, 1953 AIR SC 433 in support of this contention.;