JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 16.05.2013 passed by District Judge, Churu, whereby, the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2004 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Churu has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus: the plaintiff Bajrang Lal filed a suit on 23.11.1993 for eviction and arrears of rent against legal representatives of Murari Lal (defendant Nos. 1 to 6) and Yasheen Khan (defendant No. 7) with the averments that at Churu near Sabji Mandi a temple belonging to plaintiff known as Bajoriya Ji Hanumanji Mandir is situated, which was constructed by plaintiff's ancestors; plaintiff and prior to him, his ancestors were looking after the said temple; few shops are situated at the temple, from whose rental income, the expenses of temple are met; a shop next to the main gate of the temple was let out to Murari Lal about 25 years back, wherein, he was conducting his business; there was relationship of landlord and tenant between Ramniwas and Murari Lal; Ramniwas died about 11 years back and Murari Lal died in March, 1987; on account of death of Murari Lal - defendant Nos. 1 to 6 being his legal heirs are statutory tenants in the shop; during the life time of Ramniwas, plaintiff Bajrang Lal started looking after the temple; the rent of the shop was Rs. 1 to 6 being his legal heirs are statutory tenants in the shop; during the life time of Ramniwas, plaintiff Bajrang Lal started looking after the temple; the rent of the shop was Rs. 30/- per month and the same was paid upto 31.12.1987, whereafter the rent was due and the defendants are defaulters in payment of rent; rent for the period 01.01.1987 to 31.12.1987 was paid by defendant No. 4 Shiv Dutt Rai, for which, the receipt dated 02.04.1987 was issued; the shop in question has been sublet by Murari Lal without permission to defendant No. 7 - Yasheen Khan and Murari Lal started recovering rent from Yasheen Khan; the possession of the shop was handed over to Yasheen Khan by Murari Lal two months' prior to his death; proceedings under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 ('the Act') were initiated by Bajrang Lal; in reply thereof, it was indicated that Yasheen Khan was not the tenant and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between Yasheen Khan and the plaintiff; the suit shop was not required by legal representatives of Murari Lal and the same was reasonably and bona fidely required for the purpose of temple and in case the same is not vacated, the plaintiff would suffer more hardship; when defendant Nos. 1 to 6 were told to hand over possession of the suit shop, it was indicated that Yasheen Khan was not agreeing to vacate the suit shop and Yasheen Khan indicated that shop was let out to him by Murari Lal and he would not vacate the premises; it was prayed that the defendants be evicted from the suit shop and possession be handed over. 3. A written statement was filed by the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 & 6 indicating that after the death of Murari Lal they have no business; Shiv Dutt Rai being legal heir of Murari Lal paid rent till 31.12.1987 and as there was no business left in the shop, they stopped paying rent; Yasheen Khan started utilising the shop during the life time of Murari Lal and the same was now in exclusive possession of Yasheen Khan; Yasheen Khan used to pay rent to Murari Lal @ Rs. 30/- per month; ultimately, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. 30/- per month; ultimately, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. Defendant No. 4 - Shiv Dutt Rai filed separate written statement and reiterated the averments made by other heirs of deceased Murari Lal. 5. Defendant No. 7 - Yasheen Khan filed his written statement and claimed that Murari Lal was never the tenant in the shop and the shop was let out by late Ramniwas to him on rent @ Rs. 20/- per month; the shop was with him for last 30 years; the plaintiff in collusion with defendant Nos. 1 to 6 have filed the present suit; rent upto 31.12.1994 has been deposited by him; he is not sub-letee but the tenant in the shop. 6. In the additional pleas, it was indicated that the shop was required by the defendant; he would suffer comparatively more hardship; there were other shops with the temple and two Kotadis in the temple, which were lying vacant and can be utilized; the rent was being paid annually and no receipt was issued; after death of Ramniwas, Bajrang Lal used to take rent and did not issue the receipt; the suit should have been filed in the name of Shri Bajoriya Hanumanji and, in absence whereof, the suit was not maintainable. 7. The trial court framed ten issues; on behalf of the plaintiff five witnesses were examined and 26 documents were exhibited; on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 to 6 two witnesses were examined and documents Exhibits-D/1 to D/28 were exhibited; on behalf of defendant No. 7 five witnesses were examined. 8. After hearing the parties, the trial court decided issue Nos. 1, 2, 7 and 8, which related to subletting, together and came to the conclusion that suit shop was let out by Ramniwas to Murari Lal and Murari Lal had sublet the same to Yasheen Khan; defendant No. 7 failed to establish that he was tenant in the shop; the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 were defaulter in payments of rent; issue Nos. 1 to 6 were defaulter in payments of rent; issue Nos. 4, 5 and 6 relating to reasonable and bona fide requirement were decided together by the trial court and it was found that the plaintiff had failed to prove reasonable and bona fide requirement of the suit premises; issue No. 9 relating to requirement of filing of the suit in the name of temple was decided against defendant No. 7; ultimately, the trial court decreed the suit for eviction on the ground of subletting and directed handing over vacant possession within a period of three months from the date of decree. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed first appeal before the District Judge, Churu, who after hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and decree upheld the finding of subletting recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. 10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that both the courts below committed serious error of law in decreeing the suit filed by Bajrang Lal by treating appellant as sub-letee of Murari Lal; it was submitted that there was an apparent collusion between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and the appellant has been made a victim of the conspiracy; it was submitted that no reliable evidence was available on record to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between Ramniwas/Bajrang Lal and Murari Lal and sufficient evidence was produced on record to show that the appellant was tenant in the suit shop and, therefore, the courts below were not justified in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff; it was further submitted that from the averments made in the plaint, it was apparent that the suit premises belong to temple of Shri Bajoriya Hanumanji and, therefore, the plaintiff Bajrang Lal had no locus standi to file the suit in his own name and on that count alone the suit was liable to be dismissed. It was prayed that the appeal be admitted. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant also brought to the notice of the Court the application filed by the appellant under Order 41, Rule 2 CPC seeking to specifically raise the question of maintainability of the suit in the name of Bajrang Lal. A reply whereof has been filed by the counsel for respondent No.1 Bajrang Lal. 12. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant also brought to the notice of the Court the application filed by the appellant under Order 41, Rule 2 CPC seeking to specifically raise the question of maintainability of the suit in the name of Bajrang Lal. A reply whereof has been filed by the counsel for respondent No.1 Bajrang Lal. 12. The issue sought to be raised has already been raised before the trial court by way of issue No. 9 and, therefore, the application filed by the appellant is allowed. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 caveator opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant; it was submitted that both the courts below have concurrently found that Murari Lal was the tenant in the shop in question and he had sublet the premises to appellant Yasheen Khan and the finding of subletting in the present case being a finding of fact, the same does not involve any substantial question of law; it was submitted that from the evidence available on record, it is apparent that the entire oral evidence sought to be produced by the defendant No. 7 Yasheen Khan seeking to prove his status as tenant has been found to be wholly unreliable by the courts below for various reasons and the finding in this regard cannot be said to be perverse for any reason; on the question of maintainability of the suit in the name of Bajrang Lal, it was submitted that from the written statement of defendant No. 7 Yasheen Khan, he himself has admitted Ramniwas/Bajrang Lal as the landlord and, therefore, there is no validity in the objection raised by him in this regard; it was prayed that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and the same is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 14. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 15. 14. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 15. It was the specific case of the plaintiff Bajrang Lal that the suit shop was let out by Ramniwas, his father to Murari Lal about 25 years back from the date of filing of the suit, which comes to the year around 1968, wherein, Murari Lal was conducting his business and during his life time he permitted defendant No. 7 to use the Cabutara in front of the shop for selling vegetables and two months prior to his death in the year 1987, he handed over the possession of the shop without permission and started collecting rent from him; Murari Lal died in the year 1987, whereafter rent was paid by defendant No. 4 Shiv Dutt Rai for the period 01.01.1987 to 31.12.1987 and whereafter the rent of the premises was due and the eviction was sought based on bona fide necessity and subletting of the suit premises without permission to defendant No. 7 Yasheen Khan; the legal representatives of Murari Lal supported the version of the plaintiff and produced documentary evidence essentially to show the payment of rent upto 31.12.1987 and the fact that they were not in possession of the suit shop; defendant No. 7 Yasheen Khan claimed that the suit shop was let out to him; there was collusion between the legal representatives of Murari Lal and the plaintiff; he has been paying yearly rent to Ramniwas till his death and thereafter to Bajrang Lal, for which, no receipts were being issued; further plea was raised regarding non maintainability of the suit. 16. 16. From the document Exhibit-D/8 a registration issued under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 ('the Act of 1958'), it is apparent that Murari Lal was operating the shop since the year 1968 and the registration/licence was renewed till the year 1985; the plaintiff produced counter foils of receipts of rent issued in the name of Murari Lal as Exhibits-1 to 15 and claimed that the same bear signatures of Murari Lal till 14.02.1987 on the receipts (Exhibits-1 to 13); though the counsel for the appellant raised serious dispute about the receipt produced by the defendant on account of the fact that according to him the same did not bear signatures of Murari Lal, however, from the perusal of the document Exhibits-1 to 14, it is apparent that they bear signatures of Murari Lal and admittedly no question was put to Bajrang Lal or legal representatives of Murari Lal in cross-examination disputing the signatures of Murari Lal on Exhibits-1 to 14; besides the above documentary evidence, the extracts of the books of accounts of Murari Lal were also produced by his legal representatives indicating payment of rent of the suit shop vide Exhibits-D/1 to D/10. 17. On the other hand, the defendant No. 7 Yasheen Khan took a stock plea that for over a period of 30 years, he was paying rent to Ramniwas and Bajang Lal, for which, no receipt was issued; however, in the cross-examination, he could not give out the correct point of time when Ramniwas had died; further, in contrast to the registration certificate Exhibit-D/8 pertaining to Murari Lal, the certificate Exhibit-A/2 qua the appellant Yasheen Khan under the provisions of Act of 1958 was issued on 18.03.1989, which apparently shows possession of the suit shop earlier by Murari Lal and whereafter by Yasheen Khan; the courts below have exhaustively dealt with the oral and documentary evidence and in view of the above specific documentary evidence available on record, the findings recorded by the courts below regarding the letting out of the shop to Murari Lal, the same having been sublet to the appellant Yasheen Khan and that the same was not let out to Yahseen Khan cannot be said to be perverse so as to give rise to a substantial question of law in this second appeal. 18. So far as the allegation of collusion between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 18. So far as the allegation of collusion between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 6 is concerned, the appellant in his written statement claimed that as the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 are ardent followers of Hanuman Ji, they are prepared to sacrifice anything and can tell lies to any extent to prove their faith and, therefore, at the instance of plaintiff, they have agreed to prepare the web of subletting, which is incorrect; however, in the statement, the respondent sought to allege that there was relationship between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 6, however, he was not able to specify the nature of relationship. The nature of allegations made in the written statement and the evidence sought to be led on the said aspect, clearly shows that the appellant is merely trying to catch at straw and there is apparently no substance in the allegations. 19. So far as the issue pertaining to the suit filed by Bajrang Lal is concerned, though the objection of the defendant No. 7 and the submission of learned counsel for the appellant is regarding the filing of the suit that the suit should have been filed in the name of the temple and not in the name of Bajrang Lal himself, in view of the specific averments made in the written statement by defendant No. 7 that "he had taken the suit shop on monthly rent of Rs. 20/- from Shri Ramniwas Ji and, therefore, he is the statutory tenant of the plaintiff" (para 1) and that "he was statutory tenant of the plaintiff and is ready and willing to pay the reasonable rent" (para 17) and the definition of landlord in Section 3(iii) of the Act, which takes within its sweep any person, who for the time being is receiving the rent of any premises, whether on own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver, the objection raised by the appellant has apparently no substance. 20. 20. Besides the above, once it is found that the appellant is the sub-letee of the suit premises and no objection regarding maintainability has been raised by the legal heirs of the tenant Murari Lal, such an objection at the instance of the sub-letee is not even maintainable for lack of any privity between the subtenant, landlord as defined under Section 3 (iii) of the Act and/or the owner of the suit premises, as such, the issue sought to be raised by the appellant in the present appeal qua the maintainability of the suit itself has absolutely no basis whatsoever.In view of the above discussion, no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal and the same being devoid of any substance is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. *******