JUDGMENT : 1. - This second appeal is filed against the judgments of the Courts 1 Slow whereby both the Courts below held against that appellants. The trial Court at the trial after examining the evidence, came to the conclusion that the shop in question was rented out by the landlord to respondent No. 1 Hari Singh in his individual capacity. The trial Court also held that Hari Singh at s tie time of his induction as tenant was sole proprietor of the firm. He has inducted other two appellants as tenants, namely, Ganesh Singh and Gulab Singh as partners in the firm and thus, they have been inducted as tenants. Further Hari Singh is not presently transacting business in the name and style Solanki Automobiles. He is not sitting at the shop. He has abandoned to his possession. 2. The trial Court has also found that the appellant has committed default. In relation to the arrears of rent, it was found that after the orders have been passed u/S. 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act (for short the Act). the tenant has paid the determined amount, ts therefore, on this count in relation to the appellant, no decree was passed. However, the trial Court has considered that on the ground of sub-letting, the decree is liable to be passed. Therefore, the suit was decreed. 3. On appeal the first appellate Court considering the case of the appellants. it came to the conclusion that the receipts issued by the landlord 20 were in the name of Solanki Automobiles and Hari Singh as proprietor. The appellant has not made any endeavour by tendering oral evidence or receipts as documentary evidence whereby this could be established that Hari Singh was not the sole proprietor but was a partner of Solanki Automobiles when tenancy started. Ex.A/17 has been filed, which is a document establishing registration of the firm, with Sales Tax Department. This certificate shows that the firm has been registered in 1971 with the Sales Tax Department and Hari Singh has retired from the firm on 14.12.1987. From this document, it cannot be said that the firm was a registered partnership firm when the tenancy started. Mere partnership firm. It also does not 30 demonstrate as to who were the partners of the firm at the time of the firm's registration. From this document, it cannot be said that the firm was a registered partnership firm when the tenancy started. Mere partnership firm. It also does not 30 demonstrate as to who were the partners of the firm at the time of the firm's registration. This has been admitted by Ganesh Singh DW-2 partner of M/s. Solanki Automobiles that Hari Singh is not a partner now. Thus, this is established that Hari Singh presently not a person connected with the firm. Admittedly the firm was not registered with the Registrar of Firms. No other documents has been filed showing the constitution of the firm as partnership firm. Receipts of rent show Had Singh a, the proprietor of the firm. Thus, the appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the findings of the trial Court are not liable to be interfered. 4. Documents have been produced showing that Ganesh Singh and Gulab Singh opened an account in Syndicate Bank and became authorised signatory of the firm in 1987. Learned counsel for the appellants stressed that the Courts below have erred in accepting the case of the plaintiff. According to the ;earned counsel, the Courts below have failed to appreciate the to registration of the firm as a partnership firm with the Sales Tax Department. According to the learned counsel Ex.1 was issued in 1976 in the name of Solanki Automobiles. The learned counsel has placed reliance on various decisions one of them being a decision of this Court rendered in the matter of M/s. Asha Iron Traders v. Ahmed Bhai, 1987(11) RLR 703 , wherein this 15 Court held as under: "In this view of the matter, I hold that it is not a case of subletting as the suit premises have been let out to M/s. Asha Iron Traders and its partners and not to defendant No. 1 Pukhraj in his personal capacity...." 5. Thus, in this case it was clearly held that the tenant was M/s. Asha Iron Traders and not its partners. 6. The learned counsel has further relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arm Group Enterprise Ltd. v. Waldorf Restaurant & Ors. Thus, in this case it was clearly held that the tenant was M/s. Asha Iron Traders and not its partners. 6. The learned counsel has further relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arm Group Enterprise Ltd. v. Waldorf Restaurant & Ors. , wherein the question of sub-tenancy was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the background of Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 wherein a different category of tenant has been delineated they being first degree tenant and a tenant inferior to first degree in tenant. Thus, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case is in the background on a different kind of legislation and, therefore, has no bearing in the matter. 7. The learned counsel has relied on another case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dipak Banerjee v. Lilabati Chakraborty, (1987) 4 SCC 161 , wherein the Supreme Court held that unless the exclusive possession is established valid sub-tenancy cannot be established. 8. The learned counsel has further relied upon a case decided by this Court in Nand Kishore & Anr. v. Brij Behari & Mr. Raj., ILR (1954) 4 822 , wherein this Court held that it is not a rule of law that a party must be bound by the statement of his witness, which is to be judged on its merits. The witnesses of the appellant have said that Hari Singh had abandoned the tenancy. He is not sitting at the shop. That being the position, the statement has been relied upon by the Court below in a specific background after discussing the evidence and this case could not govern the facts of the case. 9. The learned counsel has further relied on a Supreme Court decision in the matter of Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed, (2001) 7 SCC 189 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that non-interference in second appeal is not an absolute rule of universal application. If the Courts below have ignored the evidence on record, misdirected themselves in the matter of legal principles governing and have cast wrong burden on the party to prove, the High Court may interfere. 10. If the Courts below have ignored the evidence on record, misdirected themselves in the matter of legal principles governing and have cast wrong burden on the party to prove, the High Court may interfere. 10. The learned counsel has further relied on a Supreme Court decision so in the matter of Resham Singh v. Raghbir Singh & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 3087 , wherein a brother of the tenant was allowed to look after the shop premises, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the relationship of lessor and lessee was not established in between the two brothers. The case of such ripe is not found. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants has further relied on a Supreme Court decision rendered in Boramma v. Krishna Gowda & Ors., wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that on 5 appreciation of evidence it is not a sound rule to pick from here and there but the Court is required to examine the testimony in consistency. 12. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record and have given my thoughtful consideration to the cases relied by the learned counsel. 13. The basic case of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the premises were rented out to M/s. Solanki Automobiles a partnership firm and rot to Hari Singh as sore proprietor. There are receipts to the effect that Hari Singh is proprietor of the firm. The learned counsel for the appellants was not in a position to show as to when M/s. Solanki Automobiles took the shape of 15 partnership firm by documentary evidence. It was emphasised to establish the character of the firm being the partnership firm has to be believed as few the receipts are in the name of the firm. These receipts loose importance when few of the receipts show Hari Singh as proprietor. 14. The premises in question were rented out to Hari Singh on tenancy on 1.4.1976. No receipt shows that Solanki Automobiles was partnership firm. Two partners have been inducted subsequently. Solanki Automobiles was earlier the sole proprietorship firm as alleged by the plaintiff landlord. No convincing evidence has been produced on record by the tenant showing that Ganesh Singh and Gulab Singh have not been inducted at a later stage. No receipt shows that Solanki Automobiles was partnership firm. Two partners have been inducted subsequently. Solanki Automobiles was earlier the sole proprietorship firm as alleged by the plaintiff landlord. No convincing evidence has been produced on record by the tenant showing that Ganesh Singh and Gulab Singh have not been inducted at a later stage. It has come in the evidence subsequently Hari Singh formed a firm with them and now the firm is only run by Gulab Singh and Ganesh Singh. In the background when the original tenancy of Hari Singh as sole proprietor of Solanki Automobiles is there, in absence of proof, this finding of the Courts below that there was no partnership firm at inception is not liable to be interfered. The findings of the Courts below on this ground are not liable to he considered as violative of any of the conditions on which jurisdiction under section 100 CPC can be invoked. The only tenant being the Solanki Automobiles, the sole proprietor being Hari Singh, later on getting it converted into a partnership firm and Hari Singh having abandoned, therefore, question of sub-letting stands out boldly. Such findings find support from the case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Niranjan Kumar & Ors. v. Dhyan Singh Anr., 1976 RCJ 814 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "Even assuming for the purposes of argument that respondent acted as an agent of the firm which was in existence in 1963 it would, in any event, be impossible to hold that the new firm which was constituted on the retirement of respondent in March 1968 also became a tenant of respondent No notice of dissolution was given to respondent 1 and one cannot impose a totally new contract on him as between himself and the partnership which was formed on the retirement of respondent 2." 15. The learned counsel for the appellants has also relied on a Supreme Court decision in the matter of M/s. Delhi Stationers & Printers v. Rajendra Kumar, AIR 1990 SC 1208 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mere area of some portion by someone close to the tenant cannot come within the definition of 'sub-letting' as it is a mere user. In the instant case, the original tenant is said to have parted company from the business and the business is being run by the newly constituted partners. Thus, it has no application. 16. Thus; the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that Hari Singh being not the original tenant and it was the partnership firm in the name and style Solanki Automobiles, who is the tenant, the decree of eviction is not sustainable, cannot be countenanced. Both the Courts below have rightly held that the original tenancy was in the name of Hari Singh as sole proprietor of Solanki Automobiles. The firm later on has gone in the shape of -to partnership firm. Gulab Singh and Ganesh Singh were not the original tenants. The original tenant is Hari Singh. Further Hari Singh has gone out of business. The shop is now in the exclusive possession of Gulab Singh and Ganesh Singh. That being the position, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below. The case of sub-tenancy has been 15 established beyond any suspicion. That being the position, the suit has been rightly decreed. 17. There is no force in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. However, the learned counsel for the appellants prays for reasonable time to vacate the premises. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is considered appropriate that one year's time may be granted to the appellants to hand over the vacant possession on the following terms:-- (i) that they file an undertaking before the trial Court that in the meanwhile they shall continuously pay or deposit the mesne profits at the rate of last paid rent and/or arrears of rent, if any; (ii) that they shall riot part with possession or otherwise create any third party rights in the disputed property during this period; (iii) that they undertake to deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the disputed premises within a period of one year. The undertaking shall be filed before the trial Court within a period of 30 two months from today.Appeal Dismissed. *******