JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Bali dated October 12, 1987 by which the plaintiff-respondent's suit for the recovery of arrears of rent & ejectment has been decreed. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus. 2. The plaintiff-respondent Sajjan Mal filed a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent & ejectment against the defendants on the grounds of sub-letting, material alteration and default in payment of arrears of rent. It has also been averred in the plaint that the defendant No. 2 - respondent Omprakash gave his surety for the payment of rent & his tenancy was duly terminated by means of a notice. The defendants filed their written statements traversing almost all the allegations of the plaint. Twenty issues were framed. The amount of rent & interest was determined, it was not paid & accordingly, the defence was struck out. The plaintiff examined himself and his witness Nemichand P.W. 2 and closed his evidence keeping the right of rebuttal reserved. March 6, 1987 was fixed for the defendants' evidence. For one reason or the other no witness was produced and examined by the defendants and their evidence was lastly closed on July 31, 1987. A revision was filed by the defendant-appellant against this order. It was partly allowed and it was ordered by this Court on September 15. 1987 that if the defendant-appellant Mohanlal pays Rs. 250/- as cost and produces all his witnesses on October 12, 1987, their statements would be recorded. On October 12, 1987, no witness was present and an application for the adjournment was moved by the learned counsel for the defendant-Mohanlal. The trial court did not grant any adjournment and decreed the suit the same day by its judgment under appeal. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that the learned trial court has very rigidly interpreted the order of this Court dated September 15, 1989, it was never the intention of this Court that the evidence of the defendants would not be taken and the judgment would be pronounced even if the defendant was admitted in the hospital. He contended that the defendant could not examine himself and produce his witnesses on October 12, 1987 due to his illness & admission in the hospital. He contended that the defendant could not examine himself and produce his witnesses on October 12, 1987 due to his illness & admission in the hospital. He also contended that it is not proved from the evidence on record that the plaintiff was the landlord of the defendant and he had a right to give the notice of ejectment & to file the suit for the same. He lastly contended that subletting, default and material alteration are not proved and the trial court has seriously erred to decree the suit for ejectment. 4. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents duly supported the judgment under appeal. 5. Admittedly, the defendant's evidence was closed on July 31, 1987 by the trial court. Civil Revision Petition No. 345/87 was filed by the defendant-appellant in this Court. It was decided on September 15, 1987. The relevant portion of this order runs as under :<197> "Be that as it may, looking to the facts & circumstances of this case, it appears just and proper that one last opportunity be afforded to the petitioner to examine his entire evidence on 12th of October, 1987 on payment of cost. The cost of this revision is assessed at Rs.. 250/- which the petitioner shall pay alongwith all other costs which are still due and have not been paid before he is allowed to examine his witnesses on 12th of October, 1987. Mr. Joshi undertakes that he will keep all those witnesses present in the court on that day i e. 12th of October, 1987 whom the defendant wants to examine and they alone will be examined by the Court. If their evidence cannot be recorded on that very day, the case will be taken up day to day. No adjournment will be granted to the defendant for non-production of the witnesses on that day/or any subsequent which is fixed for examination of his witnesses who are kept present on 12th October, 1987 but who may not be examined on that day. If this order is not complied with, then it will be treated that the revision petition has been dismissed and the order of the learned District Judge dated 31-7-87 shall stand restored. If this order is not complied with, then it will be treated that the revision petition has been dismissed and the order of the learned District Judge dated 31-7-87 shall stand restored. All the witnesses whom the defendant petitioner wants to examine will have to be kept present in person before the learned A.D.J. Bali on 12th of October, 1987 and they will be examined only when the cost of the revision and all other costs which are still due be paid to the opposite party before be examines his witnesses including himself. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly." It is specifically mentioned in this order that no adjournment will be granted to the defendant for non-production of the witnesses on that day or any subsequent day which is for the examination of the witnesses who were kept present on 12th October, 1987 but who were not examined on that day. It is also stated in it that if this order is not complied with, then it will be treated that the revision petition has been dismissed and the order of the learned District Judge dated July 31, 1987 shall stand as restored. 6. Application, paper No. A92/3, was moved along with the medical certificate, paper No. A92/4, by the defendant No. 2 as holder of the Special Power of Attorney of the defendant No. 1 for the adjournment of the case on the ground of his illness. Another application was moved by the defendant No. 2 on his own behalf for the adjournment on the ground that he had already moved an application for the transfer of the case. Both the applications were rejected by the trial court. The first application was rejected on the basis of the order of this Court dated September 15, 1987 and the second application was rejected on the ground that the defendant No. 2 had already been given fifteen days time to bring the order transferring the case but he had failed to do so. 7. The Special Power of Attorney, Paper No. A92/5, shows that its stamp of Rs. 10/- was purchased by the defendant-appellant Mohanlal on October 9, 1987. It is mentioned in this Special Power of Attorney that it is being executed in favour of the defendant No. 2 Omprakash as he (Mohan Lail is admitted in the hospital due to illness and for treatment. 10/- was purchased by the defendant-appellant Mohanlal on October 9, 1987. It is mentioned in this Special Power of Attorney that it is being executed in favour of the defendant No. 2 Omprakash as he (Mohan Lail is admitted in the hospital due to illness and for treatment. The medical certificate, paper No. A92/4, enclosed with the adjournment application runs as under : "Bangar Hospital, Pali 12/10/87 This is to certify that Sri Mohan Lal Dave S/o Daya Shankar Dave, age 31 years, Resident of Dhanmandi, Palimarwar has been admitted to this hospital on 10-10-87. He is still under treatment at this hospital. (R.N. Indoor) Sd/- B.K. Goyal 12-10-87 Assistant Surgeon Bangar Hospital, Pali."It is clear from this certificate that the defendant Mohanlal was admitted in the Bangar Hospital, Pali on October 10, 1987. Thus the two documents indicate that the defendant-appellant Mohanlal get himself admitted in the hospital to seek adjournment in order to further prolong the decision of the case. Even the name of the disease is not mentioned in the said medical certificate and also in the memorandum of appeal. It is also not mentioned in the memo of appeal how long the appellant remained admitted in the hospital for his treatment. During the course of arguments, it was revealed by the learned counsel for the appellant that he was discharged from the hospital on 18th October, 1987. The appellant could not dare to produce the Discharge Certificate or Bed held Ticket in support of his contention that he fell seriously ill on October 10, 1987. Admittedly, no attempt was made by the defendants to get the statement of the defendant No 1 Mohanlal on commission. It is also the admitted case of the appellant that the cost of Rs 250/- awarded by this Court ryas not pad on October 12, 1987 and no witness was present particularly when the poorer of attorney has been executed by the defendant No 1 in favour of the defendant No, 2 & the latter could arrange to produce all the witnesses before the trial court on October 12, 1987. Under these facts & circumstances, it cannot he said that the learned trial court amritted any error in closing the defendant's evidence anti pronouncing the judgment on the material on record. 8. Under these facts & circumstances, it cannot he said that the learned trial court amritted any error in closing the defendant's evidence anti pronouncing the judgment on the material on record. 8. It is well proved from the evidence on record that the defendant Mohanlal did not pay rent since 1st May, 1983, the suit was filed on 12th December, 1983 and thus the defendant has committed default in payment of rent for more than six months when the suit was filed. As already observed above, his defence was also struck off on account of non payment of the amount determined under Section 13(3), Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent) & Eviction" Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') No extenuating circumstance has been shown by the defendant-appellant Mohan lal for not triking out the defence. It is farther well proved from the unrebutted testimony of the plaintiff Sajjan Lal and his witness Nemichand P W. 2 that the defendant Mohanlal had sub-let the suit shop to Narayan Prasad Prajapat. The plaintiff's statement finds corroboration from the letter (Ex 8) of Narayan Prasad. 9. The plaintiff Sajjan Mal has categorically stated on oath that the defendant Mohan Lal has demolished the floor of the shop, has removed "Dhakaliya" and door therefrom, has constructed two bricklion in side the shop, as a result there of it has become very difficult to sit in he room above the stop and it has created a nuisance. He further deposed that the walls of the shops have also been demolished and the electric connection has also been altered. He has further stated that as a result thereof, he has been put into a great loss. Nothing damaging could be elicited out in his lengthy cross-examination. As already observed above there is no evidence in its rebuttal. No suggestion was out in the Cross-examination that all these material alteration were done with his consent. Thus the case of the material alterations is also well proved against the defendant As such there is no substance in the appeal. 10. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with costs.Appeal dismissed. *******