JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for parties. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant-tenant-Devi Singh being aggrieved by the concurrent judgments and decree of eviction in respect of a shop and first floor room situated at near Navalakha Mandir, Pali. The eviction decree was passed by the learned trial Court on 20.8.2010 on the ground of bona fide necessity of the landlord while deciding issue No. 2 in favour of plaintiff. The issues of comparative hardship and partial eviction were also decided in favour of plaintiff-respondent. The appeal filed by the appellant- defendant came to be dismissed by the learned first appellate Court by a detailed 37 pages judgment on 20.11.2010. 3. Being aggrieved by these concurrent judgments and decree of eviction, the appellant-defendant has approached this Court by way of present second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, Mr. M.C. Bhoot, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Surendra Singh urged that findings returned by the learned Courts below as to default as well as bonafide necessity are perverse inasmuch as the suit for eviction itself was not maintainable as the plaintiff-respondent had given on rent only one shop to the defendant-tenant and claimed that other shop was given by his brother whereas with the permission of the plaintiff, the defendant- tenant had removed the wall between two shops and there was only one shop in the possession of the defendants-tenant. Therefore, the suit for both the shops could not be filed by the plaintiff alone. Secondly, he submitted that a sum of 235,000/- was not advanced as rent but it was a loan given to the plaintiff against which the first floor room was mortgaged with him and, therefore, the eviction suit could not be maintained for said room also. Thus, it is prayed that the present second appeal filed by the appellant-defendant deserves to be admitted on the suggested substantial question of law framed in the memo of appeal. 5. Per contra, Mr. D.L.R. Vyas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-plaintiff drew the attention of the Court towards Exhibit-1/A/4, which is an agreement between the parties in which a stipulation has already been made that shop below the said room is already given on rent to the defendant- tenant for the sum of Rs. 5. Per contra, Mr. D.L.R. Vyas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-plaintiff drew the attention of the Court towards Exhibit-1/A/4, which is an agreement between the parties in which a stipulation has already been made that shop below the said room is already given on rent to the defendant- tenant for the sum of Rs. 15,000/- advanced by the defendant-tenant to the landlord Manjoor Ahmed, who has a room in his ownership and possession, will be given for use to the defendant and so long as the said sum of Rs. 15,000/- is repaid by the plaintiff, neither he will charge any rent from the defendant-tenant nor will pay any interest on the said sum of Rs. 15,000/-. The said agreement was executed between the parties on 5.5.1995 which was duly signed by both the parties in presence two attesting witnesses along with them. 6. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant, Mr. M.C. Bhoot also urged that a new tenancy came into force being on 1.1.1992 for a sum of Rs. 500/- for both the shops in question as against the rent of Rs. 290/- for one shop and, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent could not maintain the eviction suit for both the shops in question. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, this Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. As far as maintainability of the eviction suit is concerned, the learned Courts below have rightly found that both the shops were given on rent to the defendant-tenant and without prejudice to inter se proprietary rights between the two owner-brothers, however, with the removal of wall in between it does not change the relationship of landlord and tenant qua the present parties. It is well settled that question of title and ownership is not relevant in the eviction suits, particularly, in view of the fact that the defendant-appellant has been paying rent for both the shops to the present plaintiff-respondent, hence, he cannot claim that plaintiff could not have maintained the suit for both the shops taken together. The relationship of landlord and tenant is established on the basis of giving and taking of rent itself. The relationship of landlord and tenant is established on the basis of giving and taking of rent itself. It is an admitted case of the defendant-appellant that for joint shops, a new tenancy came into being on 1.1.1992 at the monthly rent of 7 500/- which rent was obviously paid to the plaintiff-respondent only, therefore, the defendant- tenant is not entitled to argue in the present second appeal that suit could not be maintained by the plaintiff with respect to both the shops. 8. As far as the first floor room is concerned, the Exhibit-1/A/4, referred above, which is an agreement between the parties dated 5.5.1995 is clear enough. It is not a document creating any mortgage rights in favour of defendant-tenant but the said room was given for temporary use and occupation for a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, advanced by the defendant-tenant to the plaintiff-respondent with the stipulation that no rent would be charged for the said room nor any interest will be paid by the defendant-tenant, is sufficient to construe the said document as a 'rent note'. Therefore, the learned Courts below were justified in holding the relationship of landlord and tenant between these parties with respect to said room also. The contention of the learned counsel for the defendant-tenant that suit could not be maintained for eviction with respect to said room is also not sustainable and same is, therefore, liable to be rejected. 9. As far as the findings of the learned Courts below about the bona fide necessity of the landlord with respect to suit premises is concerned, they are not only concurrent but are based on relevant evidence and material available on record also and in view of large number of family members of the plaintiff- respondents, and their need of accommodation in this respect, the learned Courts below have found that landlord has the bona fide need of the suit premises for their own residential and business purposes respectively. These findings have neither been assailed by the defendant-tenant nor are otherwise found to be perverse in any manner and it is well settled that decree of eviction even on single ground specified in Section 13 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950 can be maintained. 10. These findings have neither been assailed by the defendant-tenant nor are otherwise found to be perverse in any manner and it is well settled that decree of eviction even on single ground specified in Section 13 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950 can be maintained. 10. In the opinion of this Court no substantial questions of law in the present second appeal arises under Section 100 C.P.C. and therefore, the present second appeal being devoid of merit fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 11. The appellant-defendant-tenant shall handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises in dispute, the shop and first floor room, to the respondent-plaintiffs-landlord on or before 15.7.2011 and shall pay the arrears of rent/mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month w.e.f. May, 2011. If the appellant-defendant-tenant do not handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property in question to the respondent-plaintiff-landlord within two months or does not pay the arrears of rent, if any, and mesne profits as directed above, the respondent-plaintiff shall be free to execute the decree as well as to initiate the contempt proceedings in this Court. 12. The present second appeal is dismissed as aforesaid. No costs.Appeal dismissed. *******