Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) The appellants/defendants/tenants are aggrieved against the judgment of the appellate court dated 25.10.2005.
(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed suit for eviction of the defendants No. 1 to 4/appellants and respondent No.2 with the allegation that the suit property was in tenancy of one Narayan Das, who alone was doing the business in suit shop and was paying the rent. He died and at the time of his death, none of his family members were doing the business in the suit shop and, therefore, as per the definition given in Section 3(iv) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for shot 'the Act of 1950'), none of the family members became tenant. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants committed default in payment of rent, materially altered the premises and sub-let the suit premises to the defendant No. 4 and that the suit shop is required for the plaintiff.;