JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 02.02.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) East, Bhilwara, whereby, the suit filed by the respondent has been decreed and against the judgment and decree dated 13.01.2012 passed by the Additional District No.1, Bhilwara, whereby, the appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus: the plaintiff respondent filed a suit against the appellant-defendant for eviction and arrears of rent with the averments that the suit shop was let out to the defendant for a monthly rent of Rs. 45/-. The rent was paid till 09.04.1980, thereafter the rent was not paid and, therefore a default of 22 months has been made; the shop was let out for residential purpose, however, the same is being put to use as shop, which is violation of the rent-note; defendant has constructed a house at Sanganer Colony, Bhilwara and has started living there and, therefore, the suit premises were not required; the defendant has denied her character as tenant of the shop in question. Ultimately, it was prayed that the defendant be evicted from the shop in question and further prayer was made for payment of arrears of rent and mesne profit. 3. A written statement was filed and it was, inter alia, claimed that since 10.08.1967, the shop in question was on rent with Suresh Kumar Agrawal, Proprietor, M/s. Om Kirana Merchant, Bhilwara and the said Suresh Kumar Agrawal son of the defendant was paying the rent; defendant was not the tenant; the plaintiff without any cause started writing her name in the receipt, which is legally incorrect; receipts were issued till 1980, when the defendant sought receipts in the name of M/s. Om Kirana Merchant; the rent was not accepted; rent was sent through money-order, which was refused and, therefore, Suresh Kumar Agrawal deposited the rent under provisions of Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950; rent has been paid till 09.02.1982; no default has been committed; the plaintiff is not entitled to seek possession of the shop from the defendant. 4. Based on pleading of the parties, the trial court framed as many as eight issues. On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself was examined. On behalf of the defendant, three witnesses were examined. 5. 4. Based on pleading of the parties, the trial court framed as many as eight issues. On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself was examined. On behalf of the defendant, three witnesses were examined. 5. After hearing the parties, the trial court initially dismissed the suit on 09.05.2001 against which, in first appeal by judgment dated 12.05.2004, the judgment and decree dated 09.05.2001 was set aside and suit was remanded back to the trial court to take into consideration Ex.- 55 & 56 and decide issue No.7A. 6. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that when the shop in question was let out, defendant's son was aged about 13 years and was a school going child and her husband was serving with Rajasthan State Electricity Board and, therefore, the suit shop was let out to the defendant only and she remained in possession as tenant; the rent of the suit shop was Rs. 45/- per month; the defendant did not pay rent for 22 months and committed default; there was no change in user; the defendant has not acquired any alternative accommodation; the defendant has denied her character as tenant and her conduct has not been condoned by the plaintiff. Ultimately, the trial court gave benefit of first default to the defendant, however, in view of denial of status as tenant, the suit was decreed alongwith arrears of rent. 7. The first appellate court after hearing the parties upheld the findings recorded by the trial court. 8. It would be important to notice that son of the defendant had filed a suit seeking declaration of his status as tenant in the suit shop, which suit came to be dismissed by the trial court and first appeal was also dismissed. 9. Both the courts below have concurrently found based on evidence available on record that as the son of the defendant was aged about 13 years and was a school going child at the time when the shop was let out and husband was serving with a Government Organization, it cannot be accepted that the suit shop was let out to defendant's son and both the courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the shop in fact was let out to the defendant. The mere fact that the electricity connection in the suit shop was obtained in the business name with defendant's son as Proprietor by itself cannot prove the fact that the suit shop was let out to the son of defendant. All the receipts of payment of rent were issued in the name of defendant, which further goes to fortify the finding recorded by both the courts below. 10. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below and the fact that the defendant denied her character as tenant, it cannot be said that both the courts below were not justified in decreeing the suit against the appellant.In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the second appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******