JUDGMENT 1. - This is the second appeal by the defendants-tenants. The parties hereinafter would be referred as arrayed in the plaint. 2. The plaintiff filed a civil suit on 16.11.1992 for arrears of rent and eviction with the averments that two shops were let out to the defendant No.1 Hari Prasad on 1.7.1987 on monthly rent of Rs.600/- by the plaintiff. Eviction was sought on the grounds of default in payment of rent, reasonable and bona fide requirement for two sons of the plaintiff, material alteration and sub-letting giving the details of all the grounds. The defendants vide written statement denied all the grounds of eviction. It was pleaded that the defendant No.2 Mahesh Chand is real brother of the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.3 is his nephew. 3. Issues were framed. Evidence was recorded. Vide judgment dated 22.5.1999, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bari, district Dholpur decreed the suit for eviction. Issue No.1 of default was not pressed. Issue No.7 of material alteration was decided against the plaintiff. Issues relating to reasonable and bona fide requirement, comparative hardship and sub-letting were decided in plaintiff's favour. First appeal filed by the defendants was also dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 1.5.2003 by learned Additional District Judge, Dholpur. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The first point raised by : learned counsel for the appellants is that no issue on the point of partial eviction was framed, hence the matter should be sent back to the trial Court. Reliance is placed upon Rahman v. Ram Chand, AIR 1978 SC 413 , wherein it was held that even if the absence of specific pleading the Court has to decide the question of partial eviction. While taking similar view the Hon'ble Apex Court in Badrinarayan Chunilal Bhutada v. Govindram Ram Gopal Mundada, 2003(1) WLC (SC) Civil 254 : 2003 (1) Supreme 653 remanded the case to appellate Court for framing two specific issues for comparative hardship and partial eviction. Similar view was taken in Krishna Murari Prasad v. Mitar Singh, 1993 (Supplement) (1) SCC 439 , and in Riyaz Mohammad v. Rameshwar RLW 1989 (1) 95. Similar view was taken in Krishna Murari Prasad v. Mitar Singh, 1993 (Supplement) (1) SCC 439 , and in Riyaz Mohammad v. Rameshwar RLW 1989 (1) 95. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent contended that as directed by this Court on 8.9.2004 site plan of the suit shops with measurements has been submitted and the correctness of his site plan has not been disputed and thus the question of partial eviction may be decided by this Court in view of the measurements of the suit shops. He placed reliance upon one judgment delivered by me and reported in Shyam Sunder v. Smt. Narbada Devi & Anr. 2004 (3) RLR 511. 5. I have considered the above submissions. It is not in dispute that the Courts below were required to determine the question of partial eviction as provided u/S.14 (2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act') but no issue was framed and this point was not raised by the defendants before the two Courts below. The question is as to whether the case should be remanded to the trial Court for framing the issue of partial eviction or this question can be decided here. In the instant case the size of the suit shops is 13.2' in front, 15' in back side, 11.6' towards South and 11.10' in North side. The requirement of the suit shops has been found proved by the two Courts below for two sons of the plaintiff. Therefore, the partition of the shops would hardly serve the purpose of the either party and it would not be possible for two sons of the plaintiff to carry on their business in a portion of the suit shops. Thus this question is decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff respondent. 6. It was next submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the plaintiff has got 25 shops near the two suit shops, therefore, the findings of the two Courts below on the issues of reasonable and bona fide requirement and comparative hardship are perverse; that there is no evidence at all to prove the fact that any rent is being paid by defendant Nos. 2 & 3 to the defendant No.1; that there is no evidence of parting with exclusive possession of the suit shops by the defendant No.1 to the remaining defendants and both the sons of the plaintiff are employed, hence concurrent findings are perverse. Reliance was placed upon A S. Sulochana v. Dharmalingam, AIR 1987 SC 242 , wherein it was held that no objection was raised against the sub-letting for as many as 18 years and the sub-tenant was openly in occupation of a part of rented premises during the said period and nothing was on record to show that sub-letting was unlawful, it was held that tenant could not be evicted on the grounds of unlawful sub-tenancy within the meaning of relevant provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. In Dipak Banerjee v. Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty. AIR 1987 SC 2055 , it was held that there was no evidence of payment of rent as well as exclusive possession of sub-tenant, hence no case of sub-tenancy is made out. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent contended that the two Courts below arrived at concurrent findings on the issues of reasonable and bona fide requirement for two sons of plaintiff landlord, comparative hardship and sub-tenancy and there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. He placed reliance upon Nishar Mohammad v. Abdul Rashid, 2004 (4) WLC (Raj.) 522 , wherein it was held by me that if findings of fact are based upon evidence, the same can not be set-aside in second appeal u/S. 100, CPC. In another judgment delivered by me and reported in Jagdish Prasad v. Vishnu Kumar & Ors., 2004(3) RLR 657 , the facts were that the appellant tenant shifted to his village and his son and brother started business in the suit shop in the name of the appellant-tenant. It was held that it was not a business of joint Hindu family and it amounts to sub-letting. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and the judgments of the two Courts below. The concurrent findings of the two Courts below with regard to issues on reasonable and bona fide requirement, comparative hardship and sub-letting are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record and no case of misreading, non-reading or wrong reading of evidence is made out. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and the judgments of the two Courts below. The concurrent findings of the two Courts below with regard to issues on reasonable and bona fide requirement, comparative hardship and sub-letting are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record and no case of misreading, non-reading or wrong reading of evidence is made out. No doubt this plea was taken in the written statement that the plaintiff has got 25 shops inclusive of suit shops and specific issue No.8 was made on this point and this issue was decided against the defendants and this finding as upheld in first appeal. The two Courts below having considered the entire material evidence on record arrived at this conclusion that the plaintiff has got only two suit shops and the remaining shops belong to his brothers and not to the plaintiff. Further although there is no evidence to prove the fact that the defendant Nos. 2 & 3 are paying the rent to the defendant No.1 but this is a fact which is in special knowledge of only the defendants. Therefore, absence of evidence on the part of the plaintiff with regard to payment of rent by the sub-tenants to the tenant is not material. The two Courts below held that the defendant Nos.2 & 3 are in exclusive possession of the suit shops. In view of the entire discussion made herein above the concurrent findings of the two Courts below on the above issues can not be said to be perverse in any way. No substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. 8. Consequently, this appeal along with stay application is dismissed at the admission stage.Appeal dismissed. *******