Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—This second appeal is arising out of the judgment and decree dated 27.04.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Civil Appeal No.3/1996 (7/1990, 26/1991) “Shubh Karan (deceased) through LRs Smt. Jatan Devi Baid & Anr. vs. Babu Lal S/o Kundan Lal Agarwal” who allowed the appeal filed by the present respondents-plaintiff and directed the defendant-tenant to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property and set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.02.1990 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class in Civil Original Suit No.46/1981 “Jai Chand Lal through Power of Attorney Shubh Karan & Ors. vs. Babu Lal” by which, the learned Munsif had dismissed the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs-landlord seeking eviction of the appellant-defendant-Babu Lal from the suit shop situated at Bhadra, District Hanumangarh and recovery of arrears of rent. 2. The present second appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellant, who was the defendant-tenant before the learned Trial Court, against the decree of eviction granted by the First Appellate Court of Additional District Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in favour of the plaintiffs-landlord on the ground of renouncement of tenancy and character of the relatioship in respect of the suit shop situated at Bhadra, District Hanumangarh which was initially let out to the defendant-tenant Babu Lal under the Rent Note Ex. 1 dated 25.07.1979 on a monthly rent of Rs.150/-. The eviction suit number 46/1981 titled as Jai Chand Lal son of Udai Chand Baidh & Ors. through Power of Attorney Shubh Karan”, his son has filed the present suit against the tenant-defendant Babu Lal which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 19.02.1990 finding that no case of subletting, parting with possession of the suit shop or non-user of the suit property was made out by the plaintiff. 4. The Appellate Court of learned Additional District Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh who, had allowed the appeal and decreed the suit on 27.04.1998 finding that there was a renouncement of character of tenancy by the tenant-defendant Babu Lal and while extending the benefit of Section 13(1)(f) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, granted the decree of eviction against the defendant-tenant Babu Lal. 5. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.04.1998 passed by the learned First Appellate Court below, the defendant-tenant Babu Lal filed the present second appeal before this Court which was admitted for consideration by the coordinate bench of this Court and the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court:- “Whether a plea taken by the tenant that actually he was not a tenant alone, but he was a member of the Hindu Undivided Family who was the tenant through its karta would amount to renunciation of character as a tenant by the tenant within the meaning of clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act?” 6. The learned counsel Mr. Sanjeev Johari appearing for the appellant-defendant-tenant Babu Lal submitted that there was no renouncement of tenancy on the part of the defendant-tenant since the suit shop in question was taken on rent on 24.07.1978 by his father Kundan Lal on a monthly rent of Rs.125/- and the Exhibit-1 document dated 25.07.1979 was executed by the defendant Babu Lal since his father had gone away from the town on that date and since his father had taken the suit shop in question in tenancy in the capacity of Karta of his Hindu Undivided Family ('HUF') of which, the present defendant Babu Lal was also a member of the said family, therefore, there was no renouncement of character of tenancy of the suit shop in question by the person, who is a member of the Hindu Undivided Family, as son of the original tenant, therefore, the Appellate Court has erred in giving an eviction decree under Section 13(1) (f) of the Act of 1950. He, therefore, submitted that the substantial question of law as framed and as quoted herein above deserves to be answered in favour of the defendant-tenant and the decree of eviction deserves to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsels Mr. S.L. Jain and Mr. He, therefore, submitted that the substantial question of law as framed and as quoted herein above deserves to be answered in favour of the defendant-tenant and the decree of eviction deserves to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsels Mr. S.L. Jain and Mr. Abhinav Jain appearing for the plaintiffs-respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant and drew the attention of the Court towards the document Exhibit-1, the Rent Note, which was executed by the defendant-tenant Babu Lal, which is reproduced herein below for ready reference:- ^^fdjk;s uke nqdku euds ckcqyky iq= dqUnuykyvxzoky lkfdu usBjkuk rglhy Hkknjk gky Hkknjk dk gwW tks fd ,d nqdku iq[rk ,d [kjeh vkxs pcwrjk gS okMZ ia-11 lusek gksy ds lkeus Jh t;pUnyky iq= Jh mnSpUn cS/k Hkknjk dh dLck Hkknjk esa okds gS; gnqdku eSaus muls ,ds lky ;kfu ckgj ekg ds fy;s :- 150@& ekgokjh ij fdjk;s ij yh gS vkSj No ekg dk fdjk;k :- 900@& :- mUgsa ,Mokal ns fn;k gS ckdh ekUnk fdjk;k No ekg ds iwjs gksus ij :- 900@& :i;k ekfyd nqdku dks ns fn;k tkosxk vkSj fdjk;k rk- 25-7-78 ls pkyw gS & ,sd lky dh vof/k iwjh gkrs gh nqdku [kkyh djds ekfyd nqdku ds liqjn dj nh tkosxh blesa eSa dksbZ mtj fdlh fdLe dk ugha dj ldwaxkA vklk ikl nqdku mÙkj nf{k.k iwoZ if'pe lM+d vke uksgjk nqdku uksgjk t;pUnyky t;pUnyky t;pUnyky fy- ;g fdjk;suke Hkknjk rgjhj dj fn;k fd lun jgsA rkjh[k 10-7-78 gLrk{kj ckcwyky iq= dqUnuyky 8. The learned counsel Mr. S.L. Jain, therefore, contended that there was no tenancy in favour of the father of the present defendant-Babu Lal namely, Kundan Lal and no document was placed on record by the defendant having the alleged date 24.07.1978 creating a tenancy by his father Kundan Lal in the capacity of Karta of Hindu Undivided Family of which, the defendant-tenant Babu Lal claims to be a member. The learned counsel Mr.S.L. Jain also submitted that admittedly the tenancy was created in favour of the present appellant-defendant Babu Lal and his stand before the Courts below that the suit shop was taken in tenancy as Karta of Hindu Undivided Family by his father namely, Kundan Lal, is contrary to the aforesaid documentary evidence, the Rent Note dated 25.07.1979 and which stand of the defendant-tenant Babu Lal was rightly not believed by the learned First Appellate Court and rightly the eviction decree was granted under Section 13(1)(f) of the Act of 1950 in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents ad the same deserves to be upheld by this Court and the substantial question of law as framed and quoted herein above deserves to be answered against the defendant-tenant Babu Lal. 9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties at some length and perused the records of both the Courts below including the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. In the present case, the eviction of the defendant-tenant Babu Lal was essentially sought on the basis of non-user of suit property, or parting with the possession and the renouncement of character of tenancy of the suit shop, therefore, the substantial question of law, as quoted herein above, is to be answered by this Court on the basis of discussion on Issue No. 5 decided by the learned Courts below. The learned Trial Court had decided the Issues Nos. The learned Trial Court had decided the Issues Nos. 1 and 5 simultaneously in the following manner:- ^^5- fook|d la- 1 ,oa 5 mä nksuksa fook|d mHk; i{k }kjk is'k dh xbZ ,d gh izdkj dh lk{; ls lEcfU/kr gS rFkk fook|d ua-5 fook|d la-1 ds [k.Mu esa gS ,slh fLFkfr esa mDr nksuksa fook|dksa dk ,d lkFk foospu djuk mfpr le>rs gSA 6- xokg 'kqHkdj.k ih-M-1 dk dFku gS fd fookfnr nqdku fnukad 25-7-79 dks mlds firk us izfroknh ckcwyky dks fdjk;s ij nh Fkh vkSj bl ckcr fy[kk x;k fdjk;sukek izn'kZ 1 gSA xokg egkohj izlkn ih-M-2 dk dFku gS fd fookfnr nqdku mlds le{k Lo- t;panyky izn'kZ-1 dh fyf[kr dh xbZ Fkh ftl ij ckcwyky o mlus Lo;a us gLrk{kj fd, FksA blds foijhr izfroknh ckcwyky Mh-M-2 _)dj.k Mh-M-1 dqanuyky Mh-M-3 dk dFku gS fd fookfnr nqdku lu~ 1978 esa 125@& :i;s izfrekg fdjk;s ij la;qä :i ls dkjksckj djus ds fy, dqUnuyky us yh FkhA blds i'pkr~ Lo- t;panyky us dqUnuyky ls fookfnr nqdku dk 25@& :i;s izfrekg fdjk;k c<+kuk r; fd;kA vkSj ;g fdjk;k fnukad 25-7-79 ls ykxw fd;k x;kA _)dj.k Mh-M-1 ,oa dqUnuyky Mh-M-3 dh vuqifLFkfr esa ,oa t;panuyky us ;g dFku djds fdl mls dydrk tkuk gS vkSj ogka vk;dj ds lEcU/k esa nLrkost is'k djus gS] izfroknh ckcwyky ls fdjk;kukek ij gLrk{kj djok fy;sA okLro esa fookfnr nqdku izkjEHk ls gh izfroknh ckcwyky ,oa mlds vU; HkkbZ ,oa firk dqUnuyky ds ikl fdjk;s ij gS rFkk blesa izfroknh ,oa mlds ifjlj ds lnL;x.k }kjk la;qä fgUnw [kkunku ds :i esa dkjksckj fd;k tk jgk gSA xokg ykypanu Mh-M-4 uxj ikfydk Hkknjk esa ofj"B fyfid gSA mldk dFku gS fd x`g dj dk jftLVj lu~ 1980 ls 1983 ds vk/kkj ij lu~ 1983 ls 1986 dh vof/k dk fookfnr nqdku dk fdjk;k ij ekaxsyky dh r: 121-50 :- dj dh jkf'k fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ gSA dkye ua-7 esa fdjk;snkj dqUnuyky _)dj.k vafdr gSA bl lEcU/k esa i=koyh esa vly lhV izn'kZ ,2 gS ftldh udy izn'kZ ,2, gSA ekaxsyky }kjk is'k fd;k x;k vkosnu i= izn'kZ ,3 gS ftldh QksVks izn'kZ ,3 , gSA vly uksfVl izn'kZ ,4 gS ftldh QksVks izfr izn'kZ ,4, gSA lu~ 1980 ls 1983 ds jftLVj esa dj fu/kkZj.k dk vly bUnzkt izn'kZ ,5 gS ftldk mYys[k izn'kZ ,1 esa fd;k x;k gSA xokgku nhiflag Mh-M-5 o lq'khy dqekj Mh-M-6 dk dFku gS fd fookfnr nqdku esa izfroknh ,oa mlds HkkbZ rFkk firk la;qä :i ls dkjksckj djrrs vk jgs gSA 6- fookfnr nqdku ek= izfroknh ckcwyky tks fnukad 25-7-79 ls 150@& :i;s izfrekg fdjk;s ij Lo- t;panuyky }kjk nsus ds ckcr~ oknh 'kqHkdj.k ih-M-1 dh lk{; dks xokg egkohj ih-M-2 dh lk{; ls iw.kZ leFkZu izkIr gksrk gSA blds vfrfjä bl ckcr oknhx.k ds dFkuksa dh iqf"V vfHkys[kh; lk{; fdjk;kukek vly izn'kZ 1 ls iqf"V gksrh gS ftlesa fookfnr nqdku ek= izfroknh dks gh fdjk;s ij fn;s tkus dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA rFkk bl ij izfroknh ckcwyky ds gLrk{kj gSA fookfnr nqdku fnukad 25-7-79 dks ek= izfroknh ckcwyky dks gh fdjk;k ij nsus ds ckcr oknhx.k dh rjQ ls is'k dh x;h mijksä ekSf[kd ,oa vfHkys[kh; lk{; izfrijh{kk ds nkSjku fdlh izdkj ls [kf.Mr ugha gqbZ gSA ;|fi izfroknh us oknksrj esa fookfnr nqdku izkjEHk ls gh izfroknh mlds vU; HkkbZ ,oa firk ds ikl fdjk;s ij gksus dk mYys[k fd;k gS] ijUrq bl lEcU/k esa izfroknh dh rjQ ls iqf"V esa dksbZ vfHkys[kh; lk{; is'k ugha gqbZ gSA xokg _)dj.k dk dFku gS fd fookfnr nqdku fnukad 25-7-78 dks mlds firk dqUnuyky us fdjk;s ij yh FkhA mä xokg us izfrijh{kk ds nkSjku ;g dFku fd;k gS fd fnukad 25-7-78 dks mlds firk }kjk tc fookfnr nqdku fdjk;s ij yh xbZ rks LVkEi mlds firk uke [kjhnk x;k Fkk vkSj fy[kk i<+h dh xbZ Fkh] ijUrq bl lEcU/k esa izfroknh dh rjQ ls dksbZ vfHkys[kh; lk{; iqf"V esa is'k ugha dh xbZ gSA mä xokg us izfrijh{kk ds nkSjku ;g crkus esa vleFkZrk izdV dh gS fd fnukad 25-7-78 ds le; gqbZ fy[kki<+h ds le; dkSu dkSu xokg ekStwn FksA izfroknh dh rjQ ls is'k fd;s x;s xokg lquhy dqekj Mh-M-6 is izfrijh{kk esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd mlds lkeus fookfnr nqdku izfroknh ,oa mlds HkkbZ ,oa firk dks fdjk;s ij nsus dh ckrphr ekg tqykbZ lu~ 1978 esa gqbZ Fkh vkSj fdjk;k 150@& :i;s izfrekg r; fd;k x;k Fkk tcfd izfroknh Lo;a ,oa oknksÙkj esa tqykbZ lu~ 1978 ls 125@& izfrekg fdjk;k gksus dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA ekg tqykbZ lu~ 1978 ls fookfnr nqdku izfroknh mlds HkkbZ ,oa firk ds ikl fdjk;s ij gksus ds ckcr~ izfroknhx.k dh rjQls dksbZ cfg;kW U;k;ky; ds le{k is'k ugha dh xbZ gSA xokg ykypan Mh-M-4 dh lk{; ls Hkh izfroknh ds dFku dks dksbZ cy izkIr gksuk ugha ik;k tkrk gS D;ksafd dj fu/kkZj.k ds ckcr~ nLrkost izn'kZ ,1] izn'kZ ,2 ij fdlh Hkh oknh ds gLrk{kj ugha gSA udy vkosnu i= izn'kZ ,3, dkSulh nqdku ls lacaf/kr gS ;g Li"V ugha gSA blds vfrfjä mijksä xokg us ;g crkus esa vleFkZrk izdV dh gS fd dj fu/kkZj.k ckcr~ nLrkost izn'kZ ,1] ,2 o ,5 esa fdjk;snkj dk uke fdlus vafdr djok;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa fookfnr nqdku esa izfroknh] mlds vU; HkkbZ ,oa firk ds ikl la;qä :i ls fdjk;s ij gksus ds ckcr~ xokg ykypan Mh-M- 4 ls lk{; izfroknhx.k ds dFku dk dksbZ leFkZu gksuk ugha ik;k tkrk gSA mijksä foospu ds vk/kkj ij fookfnr nqdku ek= izfroknh }kjk fdjk;k ysuk lkfcr gS] ijUrq izfroknh ds firk }kjk fookfnr nqdku fdjk;k ij ysuk lkfcr ugha gaSaA vr% fook|d la-1 o 5 dk fu.kZ; oknhx.k ds i{k esa ,oa izfroknh ds fo:) fd;k tkrk gSA 10. The learned First Appellate Court in its judgment and decree dated 27.04.1998 also decided the Issue No.5 in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs-landlord in the following manner:- ^^fopkjk/khu ekeys esa okn i= esa bl vk'k; dk vfHkopu ugha fd;k x;k Fkk fd izR;FkhZ la[;kad 1 izfroknh ckcwyky oknkUrxZr nqdku dk vf/kHkksx NksM+dj dkBekaMw pyk x;k FkkA lq;ksX; fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk Hkh bl ckr dks vosf{kr fd;k x;k gS fd izR;FkhZ la[;kad 1 izfroknh ckcwyky }kjk dkBekaMw esa dke djus ckcr~ okn i= esa dksbZ mYys[k ugha fd;k x;k gSA lk/kkj.kr% vfHkopuksa ls ckgj dksbZ lk{; xzká ugha gS rFkkfir fopkjk/khu ekeys esa vihykFkhZ ¼oknh ds fof/kd izfrfuf/k½ 'kqHkdj.k ih-M-1 }kjk ;g lk{; fn;k x;k Fkk fd izR;FkhZ la[;kad 1 izfroknh ckcwyky 5 o"kksZ ls oknkUrxZr nqdku esa dke ugha djrk Fkk vkSj og dkBekaMw esa dke djrk Fkk fdUrq izfrijh{kk ds nkSjku mlds }kjk ek= ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd mlus lquk Fkk fd izR;FkhZ la[;kad 1 izfroknh ckcwyky dkBekaMw esa dkjksckj djrk FkkA bl izdkj fu"d"kZ ;g gS fd izR;FkhZ la[;kad 1 izfroknh ckcwyky }kjk dkBekaMw esa dkjkscj fd, tkus dh ckr ek= lquh lquk;k dFku gS ftldk ifj.kke;g gS fd og dksbZ lkjokj dFku ugha gSA lk{kh egkohj izlkn ih-M-2 }kjk Hkh lk{; esa ;g dFku fd;k x;k Fkk fd izR;FkhZ la[;kad 1 izfroknh ckcwyky us oknkUrxZr nqdku esa ,d o"kZ rd dke fd;k Fkk vkSj rRi'pkr~ og dkBekaMw pyk x;k FkkA lq;ksX; fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk lk{kh egkohj izlkn ih-M-2 ds mi;qZä dFku ij bl fojks/kkHkkl ds vk/kkj ij fo'okl ugha fd;k x;k fkk fd vihykFkhZ 'kqHkdj.k ih-M-2 dk dFku ;g Fkk fd izR;FkhZ la[;kad 1 izfroknh ckcwyky dkBekaMw pyk x;k Fkk vkSj oknkUrxZr nqdku ij fj)dj.k vkSj dqanu yky cSBrs FksA lq;ksx; fopkjk.k U;k;ky; }kjk bl fojks/kkHkkl dks Hkh Bhd rkSj ij vosf{kr fd;k x;k Fkk fd vihykFkhZ ih-M-1 'kqHkdj.k us viuh eq[; ijh{kk ds nkSjku ;g dFku fd;k Fkk fd izR;FkhZ la[;kad 1 izfroknh ckcwyky us oknkUrxZr nqdku dk dCtk lu~ 1980 esa fj)dj.k dks ns fn;k Fkk tcfd okn i= esa dCtk dqanuyky dks fn, tkus dk dFku fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj lk{; esa bl vk'k; dk dFku ugha fd;k x;k FkkA tgka rd izr;FkhZ la[;kad 1 izfroknh ckcwyky }kjk oknkUrxZr nqdku dk vf/kHkksx NksM+dj dkBekaMw pys tkus dk iz'u gs] bl lEcU/k esa lq>kko ds rkSj ij izfroknh ds lk{kh fj)dj.k Mh-M-1 Lo;a izfroknh ckcwyky@Mh-M-2 mldk firk dqanuyky Mh-M-3 vkSj lk{kh Mh-M-5 nhiflag lq'khy dqekj ls Hkh lq>kko ds rkSj ij dFku fd;k x;k Fkk ijUrq muds }kjk bl lq>kko dks izR;k[;kr fd;k x;k FkkA vihykFkhZ la[;kad 1 oknh }kjk bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ Bksl ldkjkRed lk{; is'k ugha fd;k x;k FkkA izR;FkhZ ds lq;ksX; vf/koäk }kjk pUnzfd'kksj 'kekZ cuke dEikorh , vkbZ vkj 1984 fnYyh 14 ¼17 iSjk 7½ ds izfr funsZ'k fd;k x;k gS ftlesa ;g laizs{k.k fd;k x;k gS fd ;g lR; gS fd fof/k esa ,slh dksbZ mi/kkj.k ugha gS fd firk vkSj iq= fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj dks muesa ls fdlh vU; dks mifdjk;snkjh ij ns ugha ldrs ;k lekuqnsf'kr ugha dj ldrs ;k vU;Fkk mldk dCtk ugha NksM+ ldrs fdUrq ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djuk [krjukd gksxk fd pwafd fdjk;snkj dk firk vkSj mldh larkus fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj esa O;olk; djrh gS ;g mi/kkj.kk dh tkuh pkfg, fd mlesa dCtk ls vyx gksus dh dksbZ fdLe gSA esjh jk; esa lq;ksX; fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fook|d la[;k 3 ds v/khu fn, x, bl fofu'p; esa dksbZ gLr{ksi visf{kr ugha gS fd izR;FkhZ la[;kad 1 izfroknh ckcwyky }kjk oknkUrxZr nqdku dk dCtk mlds firk dqanuyky dks lkSaik tkuk ;k mlds mifdjk;s ij fn;k tkuk ;k fdlh vU; :i esa nqdku dk dCtk NksM+k tkuk lkfcr ugha gSA vihykFkhZ ds lq;ksX; vf/koäk }kjk ;g rdZ fn;k x;k gS fd ;fn ;g lkfcr u Hkh ekuk tk;s fd izR;FkhZ la[;kad 1 izfroknh ckcwyky us oknkUrxZr nqdku dks vius firk dqanuyky dks mi fdjk;snkjh ij nh ;k mls lekuqnsf'kr fd;k ;k vU;Fkk mldk dCtk NksM+k] rFkkfir fook|d la[;kad 1 ij fn, x, fofu'p; ls ;g LFkkfir gS fd oknkUrxZr nqdku fnukad 25-7-79 dks izR;FkhZ la[;kad 1 izfroknh ckcwyky }kjk oknh t;oan yky ¼e`rd½ ls fdjk;s ij yh xbZ Fkh vkSj fnukad 25-7-79 ls oknkUrxZr nqdku dk fdjk;snkj izR;FkhZ la[;kad 1 izfroknh ckcwyky Fkk u fd mldk firk dqanuyky vkSj tc Lo;a izR;FkhZ la[;kad 1 izfroknh ckcwyky }kjk fyf[kr esa fd;k x;k vfHkopu ;g gS fd oknkUrxZr nqdku mlds }kjk dHkh Hkh fdjk;s ij ugha yh xbZ Fkh cfYd izkjaHk esa oknkUrxZr nqdku fnukad 24-7-78 dks mlds firk dqanuyky }kjk 125 :i;s izfrekg fdjk;s ij yh xbZ Fkh vkSj ogh oknkUrxZr nqdku esa drkZ [kkunku ds :i esa dkjksckj djrk Fkk vkSj oknkUrxZr nqdku dk fdjk;k oknh t;oan yky ¼e`rd½ us mlds firk dqanuyky dh lgefr ls c<+kdj 150 :i;s izfrekg dj fn;k Fkk blfy, oknh t;oanu yky nqdku ij vk;k Fkk vkSj mlus dgk Fkk fd mls mlh 'kke dks vius dkjksckj ds fy, dydÙkk tkuk Fkk vkSj pwafd ml le; mldk firk dqanuyky dgha ckgj x;k gqvk Fkk blfy, oknh dh rlYyh ds fy, mlus vius firk dh ,ot esa fdjk;sukek ij gLrk{kj dj fn;s Fks ftlds lEcU/k esa ;g Hkh dfFkr fd;k x;k gS fd gLrk{kj djkrs le; mls ;g ugha crk;k x;k Fkk fd oknh fdjk;sukek mlds uke ls fy[kdj yk;k FkkA bl lEcU/k esa bruk dguk i;kZIr gksxk fd ;g lR; gks ldrk gS fd igs fdjk;snkjh izR;FkhZ la[;kad 1 izfroknh dqanuyky ds uke Fkh] ;g ckr fo'oluh; ugha ekuh tk ldrh fd izR;FkhZ la[;kad 1 izfroknh dqanuyky ds ,ot esa fd, x, D;ksafd ek= 125 :i;s ls 150 :i;s fdjk;k fd;s tku dh fy[kki<+h ij izR;FkhZ la[;kad 1 izfroknh ckcwyky mlds firk dqanuyky dh vksj ls gLrk{kj ugha dj ldrk Fkk ;fn fdjk;snkjh vdsys mlds firk dqanuyky ds uke ls gSA og mlh n'kk esa gLrk{kj dj ldrk Fkk tcfd fdjk;snkjh mlds Hkh uke ls Hkh ;k ml n'kk esa gLrk{kj dj ldrk Fkk tcfd u;s fdjk;sukek dh rkjh[k 25-7-1979 fdjk;snkjh mlds firk ds uke ls gVkdj mlds uke ls dh tk, vkSj bl izdkj fo'oluh; ckr ;gh izrhr gksrh gS fd fnukad 25-7-79 ls oknxzLr nqdku dk fdjk;snkj izR;FkhZ la[;kad 1 izfroknh ckcwyky Fkk uk fd mldk firk dqanuykyA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;fn fyf[rk dFku esa izR;FkhZ la[;kad 1 izfroknh ckcwyky }kjk ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd og dHkh Hkh oknkUrxZr nqdku esa fdjk;snkj ugha Fkk rks bldk lh/kk vFkZ ;g gS fd mlus oknkUrxZr nqdku ds lEcU/k esa viuh fdjk;snkjh gSfl;r dk ifjR;kx fd;k gSA tks fd jktLFkku ifjlj ¼fdjk;k] ,oa csn[kyh] fu;a=.k½] 1950 dh /kkjk 13¼1½¼,Q½ ds v/khu csn[kyh dk ,d vk/kkj gSA** 11. From the aforesaid findings of both the Courts below which have been concurrent as far as Issue No. 5 is concerned, the Courts below have ultimately found and rightly so, on the basis of Exhibit-1, the Rent Note dated 25.07.1979, executed by the Babu Lal and there was nothing on record to show that the tenancy of the suit shop in question was taken by the Karta of Hindu Undivided Family, i.e., the father of the present defendant-tenant namely, Kundan Lal. On perusal of the record, it is noticed that the Rent Note document dated 25.07.1979 neither refers that the tenancy was taken in the year 1978 nor does it indicate that the same was executed on behalf of Shri Kundan Lal, the father of the present defendant or by the defendant Babu Lal, as a member of the Hindu Undivided Family of Shri Kundan Lal. The stand taken by the defendant-tenant through out before the Courts below and before this Court also thus appears to be contrary to the documentary evidence, Exhibit-1, the Rent Note. As a matter of fact, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below that the defence taken by the defendant-tenant of his not renouncing the character of tenancy of the suit shop in question was contrary to the documentary evidence, the Rent Note dated 25.07.1979, are the findings of facts and could not be said to be perverse and apparently the same did not even given rise to a substantial question of law arising out of the said judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below on the basis of the findings of facts so arrived at after appreciation of the relevant evidence on record. However, since the aforesaid substantial question of law has been framed in this regard by a co-ordinate bench of this Court, the said question is apparently required to be answered in favour of the plaintiffs-landlord and against the defendant-tenant Babu Lal because it is clear from the documentary evidence that there was no tenancy in favour of the father of defendant namely, Kundan Lal, as Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family and this fact is clear from the document Exhibit-1, the Rent Note dated 25.07.1979, executed by the defendant-tenant that the tenancy of the suit shop in question was only in favour of the defendant Babu Lal only and who denied the same in his statement, therefore, there was a renouncement of tenancy by him giving rise to the ground of eviction under Section 13(1(f) of the Act. 12. In fact, a bare perusal of the rent note Exhibit-1 dated 25.07.1979 would show that the defendant-Babu Lal had taken the suit shop in question for a period of one year on a monthly rent of Rs.150/- and after one year from 25.07.1979, he was supposed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit shop in question to the respondent-landlord. After the year 1979, it is uptil now only the litigation and the waiting period for the respondent-plaintiff-landlord to get the possession of the suit shop and the defendant-tenant has enjoyed the suit shop through out on a paltry rent of Rs. 150/- per month for the years together which was increased by the orders of the Courts and it is now at Rs.1250/- per month which is being paid by the defendant-tenant. The defence taken by the defendant-tenant was clearly untenable and was not sustainable being contrary to the document evidence Ex.1 and the learned Courts below have rightly decided and given their findings on Issues Nos. 1 and 5 in favour of the plaintiff. 13. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the present second appeal filed by the defendant-tenant-Babu Lal is liable to be dismissed and the question, as framed, is hereby answered in favour of the respondents-landlord. 14. Accordingly and in view of the above discussion, the present second appeal filed by the appellant-defendant-tenant Babu Lal stands dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and both the parties forthwith. 15. 14. Accordingly and in view of the above discussion, the present second appeal filed by the appellant-defendant-tenant Babu Lal stands dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and both the parties forthwith. 15. In the circumstances of the case, it is directed that the appellant-defendant-tenant shall now hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit shop to the respondents-plaintiffs within a period of six months from today i.e. on or before 31.08.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @Rs.5,000/- per month (Rupees Five Thousand p.m.) commencing from March, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the respondent/plaintiff also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of six months for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/ defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the respondents/plaintiffs within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the Trial Court within three months and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the respondents-plaintiffs within a period of six months from today or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the respondents-plaintiffs shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court.