JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The trial court in a suit for eviction filed by the respondent on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity under section 13(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), on the ground of default as set out in section 13(l)(e) of the Act and on the ground of subletting or parting with the possession of the premises as set out in section 13(I)(e) of the Act, decreed the suit of the respondent for eviction regarding the shop as well as a `Malia' situated in Pali. The appeal filed by the appellant also did not succeed and the decree for eviction on the three grounds was upheld. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Though the suit has been decreed on all the three grounds as stated above but I am of opinion that so far as the ground of subletting u/s. 13(l)(e) of the act is concerned no substantial question of law arises for determination. 4. In the instance case, so far as the section (d) for sub-letting is concerned, it may be stated that the case of the plaintiff respondent was that under the two tenancies under Ex. 1 and Ex. 2, the premises were let out to Jivraj who was the sole proprietor of M/s Jivraj Mohanlal. A case was set up by the appellants that firm Jivraj Mohanlal was a joint Hindu family firm and was later on changed to a partnership concern which was registered but Jivraj was not one of its partners. Thus a case was set up that it was only change of the name of the firm from joint Hindu family to partnership firm and thus, no case of subletting or parting with the possession of the premises is made out. Dealing with the admissions of the parties including the statement of Sayarchand DW I in which he has admitted that a partition in the family took place about 30-40 years ago, the learned lower appellate court has reached to a finding of fact that the suit premises were given to Jivraj of M/s Jivraj Mohanlal which was sole proprietorship concern of Jivraj and when the same premises were assigned to partnership concern, M/s Jivraj Kheemchand Jivraj admittedly was never a partner, it amounts to subletting, Mr. Chopra submits that a look on Ex. 2 the rent note will show that it was signed by Sayarchand but it appears that it was signed by Sayarchand for Jivraj Mohanlal which under the rent note Ex. I which preceded rent note Ex. 2, was described as the sole proprietorship of Jivraj. Thus, the finding has been recorded by both the courts that a clear case of subletting of the leased out premises by Jivraj to a registered partnership firm Jivraj, Kheemchand, of which he has never a partner, is made out. It is purely a finding of fact and no question of law, so far as subletting under section 13(1)(e) of the Act as concerned arises. 5. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed summarily. But looking to the difficulties in getting commercial accommodation, I hereby grant twelve months time to the appellant to vacate the suit premises, provided the appellant gives an undertaking in the trial court within a period of one month that after the expiry of the aforesaid period of one year (12 months) they shall hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent provided further that the appellants continue to pay rent during the aforesaid period of 12 months, month by month by the 15th of each subsequent month to the landlord or deposit it in the trial court.Appeal dismissed. *******