JUDGMENT 1. - This is second appeal filed by the defendant-tenant against the judgment and decree dated 9.12.1999 passed by the District, Judge, Karauli whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court dated 15.5.1998 dismissing the suit for eviction was set aside. 2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel on behalf of respondent-caveator, as the respondent entered a caveat, and perused the judgments of both the Courts below as well as the records which have been summoned in this case by order dated 24.1.2005. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it is a case of reversal of the judgment and decree, inasmuch as, the learned trial Court did not find favour that the case of the plaintiff-respondent landlord on the ground of the premises having been sublet to the defendants No.6 and 7 by the father of defendants No. 1 to 5. 4. I have gone through the judgment of the learned first appellate Court and found from the same that learned appellate Court below has discussed in detail the either evidence and took into consideration various circumstances and came to the conclusion that in fact the property was in possession of defendant No.7 and the defendants No. 1 to 5 had parted with the possession of the same by subletting the premises to him. 5. Various circumstances which have weighed with the learned appellate Court below are as follows:- (i) The learned appellate Court below found as a fact that it is undisputed that property in question which is shop was given on rent. The learned appellate Court below has further found in para 8 of its judgment that it is undisputed that shop in question was given on rent at the rate of Rs. 65/- per month to the father of defendants No. 1 to 5 deceased - Maqbool and the shop was never let out to defendant No. 6-Shafi. (ii) The learned appellate Court below has also taken into consideration the fact that defendant No.6-Shafi in his statement has admitted that property in dispute had been given on rent only to Maqbool, father of the defendants No.1 to 5. (ii) The learned appellate Court below has also taken into consideration the fact that defendant No.6-Shafi in his statement has admitted that property in dispute had been given on rent only to Maqbool, father of the defendants No.1 to 5. (iii) The learned appellate Court below considered the amended written statement filed by the defendants on 9.3.1998 and upon consideration of the same, came to the conclusion that it is to be inferred from the aforesaid facts that property (shop in dispute) is not in possession of the defendants No. 1 to 5 but in the possession of the defendant No.7-Mohd. Rafiq who is son of defendant No. 6-Shafi. In that view of the matter, it leads to the conclusion that defendants No. 1 to 5 have parted with the possession of the property in dispute by subletting the same to defendant No.6. (iv) The learned appellate Court below also took into considerate i the provisions of Section 3(7) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950') and came to the conclusion that defendants No. 6 & 7 do not come within the definition of tenant and could not have any right to occupy the shop after the death of original tenant-Maqboc I as they do not fall within the category of heirs who are held entitled to be recognised as statutory tenants in view of the aforesaid definition. (v) From the averments made in the written statements the learned appellate Court further came to the conclusion that defendant No. 7 was also paying the rent which leads to the conclusion that he was a sub-tenant in the premises (shop in dispute). (vi) Learned Appellate Court further found that if the statement of defendant's witness DW-3 Bashir alone is to be believed, it is a clear case of parting of possession where Bashir has categorically stated that defendants No. 1 to 5 and defendant No. 7 were carrying on separate business in the same shop on two separate counters. The learned appellate Court below in para 11 of its judgment has also considered this evidence and circumstance to come to a finding of subletting. The learned appellate Court below in para 11 of its judgment has also considered this evidence and circumstance to come to a finding of subletting. (vii) It has also come on record that ration cards of the family of Maqbool, original tenant and father of defendants No. 1 to 5 and that the family of Shafi, defendant No. 6 whose son viz, Mohd. Rafiq, defendant No.7 are separate, as such, from the same shop two families are carrying out two businesses. Learned appellate Court has also held that defendant No. 7-Mohd. Rafiq did not enter the witness box so as to depose as to in what capacity and in what manner he had come into possession of the shop. Since this was a fact within the special knowledge of the defendant No. 7 that he did not enter the witness box, the learned appellate Court has drawn an adverse inference against the defendants. 6. I find that learned appellate Court having dealt with the material extensively and having considered entire facts and circumstances has not committed any error in arriving at the finding that in fact the shop had been sublet to the defendant No.7 and consequently, the decree passed for eviction based on the provisions of Section 13(1)(e) of the Act of 1950 is upheld and calls for no interference in the second appeal. 7. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. The stay application is also dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants are granted two months time form today to vacate the suit premises. The parties are left to bear their own costs.Appeal dismissed. *******