SHARMA, J. - (1.) SUIT for eviction in respect of property in question instituted by the plaintiff-respondents against the defendant-appellant was decreed by the Trial Court. After unsuccessful of the first appeal, the tenant-appellant has preferred the instant second appeal.
(2.) HAVING reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the ma-terial on record. Mr. B. L. Mandhana, learned counsel appearing for the appellant canvassed that there is no legal evidence on record to hold that suit plot had been sub-let to alleged Allimuddin @ Stepney. Non-examination of alleged sub-tenant is not fatal and no adverse inference could be drawn against him. Both the Courts be-low have over looked the established position of law that for establishing sub-tenancy exclusive possession of sub-tenant and ouster of tenant is a condition precedent, whereas in the present case there is no evidence that Allimuddin @ Stepney was in exclusive occupation and possession of suit land and the findings of the Courts blow deserve to be set aside. Elaborating the arguments. Mr. Mandhana also contended that Allimuddin @ Stepney was working as Mistri and then he became partner of the plaintiff. It is common knowledge that on every Petrol Pump Mistri is allowed to sit and he carries on auto repairing work. In the present case since the defendant had started sitting on another adjacent Petrol Pump, the Mistri was allowed share in the profits in the motor parts shop of the plaintiff being carried on the suit piece of land. It is admitted on the record that two petrol and diesel distribution pumps of the appellant are fixed on the suit land. His vehicles are also parked over there. Under these circumstances the possession of the appellant is rather admitted. Thus the finding of sub-tenancy is perverse. I am unable to pursuade myself to agree with the submissions advanced before me by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed as many as seven issues. In respect of sub-letting issue No. 5 was framed. After discussing the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned trial Court decided this issue in favour of the plaintiff land lord by holding that the tenant-appellant had sub-let the suit plot. It was held that the tenant-appellant was bound to submit details u/s. 106 of the Evidence Act in respect of the alleged partnership with Stepney. But neither the documents were produced by the tenant-appellant nor Allimuddin @ Stepney was examined as a witness. Under those circumstances it was held that the tenant-appellant had-sub let the suit plot. The learned appellate Court has also discussed the evidence adduced by the parties and held that the tenant-appellant had sub-let the suit plot. Finding of sub-letting is a finding of fact and I do not see any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the learned Court below. I am satisfied that no substantial question of law is involved in the instant second appeal. Consequential the appeal fails and stands dismissed. No costs. .;