JUDGMENT 1. - This is defendant-tenant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. The shop in question originally belonged to Ganeshlal, who is alleged to have transferred it by sale to Sukhdeo, and Jagdish Prasad. Ganesh Lal, his sister's son Ghasilal Sukhdeo and Jagdish brought this suit for ejectment against Ratan Lal to whom the shop had been leased out by Ganesh Lal on the following two grounds, viz:- 1. Default in payment of rent; and, 2. Personal necessity. The suit was resisted by the defendant, and the trial Court by its judgement dated 20th July, 1971 dismissed it. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur city set aside the judgement and decree by the trial court and granted a decree for ejectment on the ground of default only. 2. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has urged the following points:- 1. That Ganesh Lal died in February, 1972 while the appeal was pending in the first appellate-Court, and nobody was substituted as his legal representative; and, therefore, the appeal should be deemed to have abated; 2. That the appellant had not committed any default in payment of rent; and, 3. In any case, since Sukhdeo and Jagdish Prasad are transferees from Ganeshlal, as such, they cannot take benefit of the proviso to Section 13 (4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. 3. In my opinion, none of these points has any substance. The previous suit filed by Ghasilal against the appellant for ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent, was dismissed on account of the appellant having been given the benefit of Section 13 (A) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 by depositing the rent. He, therefore, cannot take advantage of making a deposit under Section 13 (4) of the Act and, the argument of the learned counsel that the transferee of Ghasilal, Sukhdeo and Jagdish Prasad cannot take the benefit of the proviso to Section 13(4), is devoid of substance. Default committed in the payment of rent in respect of first landlord does not cease to be a default when the previous landlord transfers the property. 4. Default committed in the payment of rent in respect of first landlord does not cease to be a default when the previous landlord transfers the property. 4. So far as the objection regarding the legal representative of Ganesh Lal is concerned, admittedly Ganesh Lal has left behind no heir except his sister's son Ghasi Lal, and Ghasi Lal was already on record as the adopted son of Ganesh Lal. In any case, this point is of no substance inasmuch as the property has been transferred in favour of Sukhdeo and Jagdish Prasad. 5. As regards the question of proof of default, admittedly, no rent receipt has been produced by the defendant, and the finding of fact arrived at by the lower Court that defendant committed default in payment of rent for more than six months is one of pure fact, calls for no interference. 6. The result is that I do no see any force in this appeal and here by dismiss it, but without any order as to costs. 7. Learned counsel for both the parties are agreed that nine months time may be granted to the appellant to hand over vacant possession of the shop in question to the respondents. Ordered accordingly. *******