Judgment N.C. Kochhar, J.-The facts giving rise to this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure are as under:-The plaintiff-respondent Mohan Lal had instituted a suit against Bansilal-appellant and Ghevar Chand (since deceased) for a decree of eviction in respect of the shop in dispute on the grounds, inter alia, of subletting. It was alleged that the shop in dispute had been let out by the plaintiff to Shn Amolackchand, the late father of Banshilal and, after the death of Amolackchand, Banshilal had sublet the shop in dispute to Ghevar Chand without the consent or permission of the plaintiff and Ghevar Ghand was carrying on business therein. The suit was contested by the appellant and Ghevar Chand, who filed their joint written statement denying the allegations of subletting. It was pleaded that Amolackchand and Ghevar Chand were the joint tenants of the shop in dispute and that they were carrying on family business therein and, after the death of Amolackchand, Banshilal’s son Sardar Mal alias Paras Mal and Ghevar Chand were carrying on businesss in the shop in dispute and there was no case of subletting. The learned trial Court, after recording the evidence produced by the parties and hearing their learned Counsel, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff The appeal was heard by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, who, vide the impugned Judgment dated 6-3-1981, has come to the conclusion that Banshilal had sub-let the shop in dispute to Ghevar Chand without the consent of the plaintiff and, consequently, decree for eviction has been passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant-appellant (Ghevar Chand having died and his name having been scored off during the pendency of the suit as he left behind no heir. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant-appellant has approached this Court by filing this appeal. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant-appellant has approached this Court by filing this appeal. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 3. Thelearned Counsel for the appellant-defendant has contended that the learned first appellate Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the shop in dispute had been sub-let by the appellant to Ghevar Chand as no evidence was produced by the plaintiff to show that Ghevar Chand was paying any rent to Banshilal and further that there was no evidence to show that Ghaver Chand was in exclusive possession of the shop in dispute. 4. As noted above, it was the case of the plaintiff that Ghevar Chand alone was carrying on business in the shop in dispute. Ghevar Chand and the defendant-appellant, who filed their written statement did not deny the presence of Ghevar Chand in the shop in dispute and the case set up was that he was also a joint tenant and further that he was carrying on business with the son of Banshilal. All these facts were within the knowledge of the defendant-appellant. During the course of evidence it has come On record that Banshilal has been employed in the Railways and was Government Servant and Sardar Mal alias Paras Mal, the son of Banshi Lal was studying. Although, in his statement on oath, while appearing as DW 1, Banshilal has deposed that the foodgrain licence was originally in the name of Amolackchand and Ghevar Chand and the same continued in the joint names but no such record was produced. No other evidence, even the account books, were produced to show that Banshilal or Paras Mal had anything to do with the business which was being carried out in the shop in dispute. Admittedly, rent receipts had been originally issued in the name of Amolackchand and there is nothing to show that he was paying rent on his behalf as also on behalf of Ghevar Chand. Once it is held that Ghevar Chand was not the tenant in the shop in dispute in joint capacity and was in possession thereof , it was for the defendants, within whose knowledge the specific facts and the evidence was, to show the capacity in which Ghevar Chand was occupying the shop in dispute. Once it is held that Ghevar Chand was not the tenant in the shop in dispute in joint capacity and was in possession thereof , it was for the defendants, within whose knowledge the specific facts and the evidence was, to show the capacity in which Ghevar Chand was occupying the shop in dispute. The best evidence being available with the appellant and he having not produced the same, adverse inference has to be drawn against him. Taking all these facts into consideration, it cannot be said that the learned first appellate Court committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the shop in dispute had been sublet or possession thereof has been parted with and plaintiff-respondent was entitled for a decree of eviction and, in my view, no interference is called for. 5. No other point has been raised before, me. 6. The appeal is without any merit and is dismissed, but, taking into consideration the fact that the premises in dispute is a shop, time till 31-7-1995 is granted to the defendant-appellant to vacate the shop subject to the defendant-appellant to vacate the shop subject to the condition that he would file an undertaking in the learned trial Court within a period of one month from today to the effect that he would hand over its vacant and peaceful possession to the plaintiff-respondent on or before 1-8-1995 and also subject to the condition that he would pay the damages for use and occupation till 31-7-1995 to the plaintiff within the above said period of one month. If the defendant-appellant fails to either pay the damages for the period in question or to file an undertaking within the above said period of one month from today, the plaintiff-respondent will be free to execute the decree. The appeal stands decided accordingly.