JUDGMENT 1. The defendant-tenant-Hatim Ali s/o Fida Hussain has filed the present second appeal in this Court on 8/12/1999 being aggrieved by the concurrent grant of eviction decree by two courts below in favour of the plaintiff-landlord-Rustam Ali, now represented by his legal representatives, who claimed eviction of the defendant tenant on the ground of personal and bonafide necessity of the landlord & his family members specially for the business needs of his son Abdul Rahim, who unfortunately died during the course of long litigation, in respect of the tenancy, which was commenced in the year 1976, about 40 years back. 2. It is the long time of litigation which is the theme of success of tenants in such litigation, otherwise as the facts of the present case would also show and the judgment and decree of the two courts below granting eviction decree would also indicate that the tenant had not even a semblance of standing to legally retain the possession of the suit shop in question in the present case. 3. 3. Firstly, the relevant findings of the two courts below giving the decree of eviction in favour of the landlord on the grounds of default in payment of rent, sub-letting by the original tenant – Hatim Ali in favour of his father Fida Hussain and personal & bonafide necessity of the landlord are quoted below for ready reference:- Findings of the trial court:- ^^bl lanHkZ esa fo}ku odhy izfroknh dk ;g dguk gS fd ;g jlhn lPph gS vkSj jLre dks lk{; esa is’k ugha fd;k x;k gS vr% og gh ;g lkfcr dj ldrk Fkk fd ;g jlhn mls }kjk tkjh dh xbZ ;k ughaA bl lanHkZ esa tks izfroknh ds }kjk lk{; is’k dh xbZ gS mlesa gh fojks/kkHkkl gS D;ksafd izfroknh Mh-M- 1 gkfrevyh us vius c;kuksa esa ;g dgk gS fd og oknh dh nqdku ij x;k Fkk vkSj ogh ij fnukad 30-6-76 dks ;g jlhn fy[kk;h xbZ vkSj og pksiuh vkfn ftlesa fglkc fy[kk Fkk og vius lkFk ysdj x;k Fkk vkSj ftldks fd oknh us ogka ij QkM+ fn;k vkSj tyk fn;k ysfdu izfroknh ds }kjk izLrqr xokg Mh-M- 4 vCckl vyh ftldh fd ekStwnxh izfroknh jlhn fy[krs le; crkrk gS mlus vius c;kuksa esa ;g dgk fd izn’kZ , 1 jlhn flusek esa fy[kh xbZ vkSj bldk dguk gS fd pkSiuh vkfn ftlesa fglkc jgrk gS og oknh dk yM+dk ysdj pyk x;k Fkk vkSj mlus ;g QkM+ nh FkhA blh izdkj xokg Mh-M- 3 fQnkgqlSu dk dguk gS fd jlhn Fkkus esa fy[kh xbZ Fkh vkSj ml le; oknh Lo;a esgckr[kka o lkgc ekStwn FksA vr% mDr rhuksa gh xokgku ds c;kuksa esa fojk/kksHkkl gS xokg Mh-M- 1 gkfrevyh dk dguk gS fd jlhn oknh dh nqdku ij fy[kk;h xbZ rFkk xokg Mh-M- 3 fQnk gqlSu dk dguk gS fd jlhn Fkkus esa fy[kh xbZ ,oa xokg Mh-M- 4 vCckl vyh dk dguk gS fd jlhn flusek esa fy[kh xbZ vr% mDr rhuksa xokgks ds c;kuks esa tks fojks/kkHkkl gS og buds dFkuksa dh lR;rk dks lafnX/k cukrs gSA mDr rhuksa xokgku dk ;g Hkh dguk gS fd ftl le; jlhn cuk;h xbZ ml le; oknh Lo;a Hkh ekStwn Fkk tc oknh ml le; Lo;a ekStwn Fkk rks mlus vius gkFk ls ;g jlhn D;ks ugha fy[kh bldk dksbZ rdZ laxr dkj.k izfroknh ugha ckr ik;k gSA izfroknh us viuh ftjg esa ;g dgk gS fd ftl jkst pkSiuh QkM+h Fkh mlh jkst u;h jlhn fy[kok;h Fkh vkSj mldk dguk gS fd jlhn fnukad 30-6-76 dks QkM+h FkhA vxj izn’kZ , 1 fnukad 30-6-76 dks fy[kh xbZ rks bl le; ij :Lre us gLrk{kj fnukad 23-6-76 dks fdl izdkj ls fd;s ;g fo’oluh; izrhr ugha gksrk gS fd okLro esa :Lre ds }kjk gh ;g jlhn fy[kh xbZ gSA blds vykok izn’kZ , 1 ij fVdV nwljs fnu yxk;k tkuk crk;k tkrk gS vkSj fVdV ij gLrk{kj ugha gS vkSj mlds dkj.k izfroknh ds }kjk ;g crk;k x;k gS fd isu ugha Fkk blfy;s :Lre us gLrk{kj ugha fd;s ;g ckr Hkh izfroknh dh fo’oluh; izrhr ugha gksrh gSA vr% tgka rd izn’kZ , 1 ds fu”iknu dk iz’u gS izfroknh vkSj mlds }kjk izLrqr lk{; bl fo”k; esa fo’oluh; ugha gS ,oa :Lre ds }kjk izn’kZ , 1 fy[kk tkuk lk{; ls lkfcr ugha gksrk gSA vr% fnukad 30-6-76 rd fdjk;s dh vnk;xh dh ckr izfroknh dh lkfcr ugha gSA oknh ih-M- 1 vCnqy djhe us vius c;kuksa esa ;g dgk gS fd fdjk;s dh vnk;xh nkok nk;jh rd ugha dh xbZ gS vkSj izfroknh dk ;g dguk gS fd igys mlus euhvkMZj ls fdjk;k oknh dks Hkstk ysfdu og fdjk;k ugha fy;k blfy;s U;k;ky; esa fdjk;k tek djk fn;k x;kA vr% pawfd rkjh[knkok nk;jh rd 900@& :i;s fdjk;s ds izfroknh esa cdk;k jgk Fkk ysfdu mlds }kjk ckn esa fdjk;k fu;ekuqlkj tek djk;k x;k vr% ;g izfroknh ds }kjk fdjk;k dh vnk;xh esa izFke O;frdze ekuk tk;sxkA vr% oknh ;g rks lkfcr djus esa lQy jgk gS fd izfroknh us fdjk;s dh vnk;xh esa dkuwuh pwd dh gS ysfdu izFke O;frdze gksus ds dkj.k bl vk/kkj ij izfroknh ds fo:} fu”dklu dh fMdzh ikfjr ugha dh tk ldrhA vr% ;g okn fcUnq oknh ds i{k esa rFkk izfroknh ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA okn fcUnq la[;k 2 o 4 %& bu nksuksa okn fcUnqvksa dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj Hkh oknh ij gSA xokg ih-M- 1 oknh vCnqy djhe dk ;g dguk gS fd mls oknxzLr nqdku dh vius csVs vCnqy jghe ds fy;s t:jr gS og 12oh i<+k gqvk gS vkSj csdkj fQj jgk gS og flQZ ,d ek= Hkq[kkjh esa gh cSBrk gS D;ksafd mlds ikl vU; nqdku ugha gS blfy;s mldk csVk csdkj gS viuh ftjg esa xokg us ;g dgk gS fd :Lre 10 o”kZ ls vyx jgrk gS vkSj mlds ikl vkSj dksbZ nqdku gh ugha gSA xokg us ftjg esa ;g Hkh dgk gS fd igys oknxzLr nqdku esa ,d fclk;rh fdjk;snkj Fkk ml nqdku dks nkok djds [kkyh djk;hA xokg us viuh ftjg esa ;g Hkh dgk gS fd nqdku [kkyh igys okys nkos ls gks tkus ds ckn og nqdku ij blfy;s ugha cSBk D;ksafd mls y[kok gks x;k Fkk D;ksafd mldk cPpk ml le; i<+kbZ dj jgk FkkA nqdku [kkyh gksus ds ckn djhc Ms<+ o”kZ rd [kkyh iM+h jghA xokg ih-M- 2 vCnqy jghe us vius c;kuks esa ;g dgk gS fd mlds firk dh nqdku ij gkfrevyh fdjk;snkj gS vkSj gkfrevyh dej vyh cksgjs dh nqdku ij cSBrk gS vkSj bldh nqdku ij dksbZ nwljk vkneh cSBrk gS vkSj bldk firk efUnj dh Hkq[kkjh esa cSBrk gS ogh /ka/kk vPNs izdkj ls ugha py ldrk D;ksafd ,d ls nwljk vkneh ogha ugha cSB ldrk vkSj 4 lky ls og i<+kbZ NksM+dj csdkj gS vkSj og tujy LVksj dh nqdku djuk pkgrk gS vkSj vius HkkbZ ds fy;s dgk fd og ?kj ij gh pwM+h dk /ka/kk djrk gS vkSj nqdku ij vius firk dk gh cSBuk crk;k vkSj ;g dgk gS fd tc og dgha ij pys tkrs gS rks og vius firk dh nqdku ij cSBrk gSA xokg ih-M- 3 ewypan us vius c;kuksa esa ;g dgk gS fd oknh lR;ukjk;.k ds efUnj dh Hkq[kkjh esa cSBrk gSA Hkq[kkjh 10 fQV yEch o 7&8 fQj pkSM+h gSA xokg ih-M- 4 ca’khyky dk ;g dguk gS fd oknh ftl nqdku ij cSBrk gS og 4 fQV yEch o 5 fQV pkSM+h gS vkSj njoktk <kbZ&rhu fQV dk gh gS vkSj gkfrevyh dgha cksgjk dh nqdku ij cSB jgk gS vkSj viuh ftjg xokg us ;g dgk gS fd oknxzLr nqdku ij gkfrevyh dks dHkh Hkh cSBrs gq, ugha ns[kk gSA xokg Mh-M- 1 gkfrevyh izfroknh dk c;ku gS fd og o fQnkgqlSu ‘kkfey jgrs gS vkSj oknh ls ;g nqdku mlus O;kikj djus ds fy;s fdjk;s ij yh Fkh vkSj tc ls ;g nqdku fdjk;s ij yh gS rHkh ls ml ij bldk firk cSBrk gSA oknh lR;ukjk;.k efUnj ds uhps efugkjh dk dke 20&22 o”kksZ ls dj jgk gS vkSj nqdku dkQh yEch pkSM+h gS bldk yM+dk Hkh blh nqdku ij cSBrk gSA izn’kZ 1 fdjk;k ukek vius Lo;a ds uke ls fy[kk gqvk gksuk crk;k gSA izfroknh ds }kjk izLrqr xokg Mh-M- 2 jruyky us vius c;kuksa esa ;g dgk gS fd oknh dh nqdku izfroknh dks fdjk;s ij gSA bl nqdku ij izfroknh dk firk fQnkgqlSu cSBrk gS vkSj izfroknh dks mlus dHkh Hkh bl nqdku ij cSBrs gq, ugha ns[kk vkSj ftl nqdku ij gkfrevyh vc dke djrk gS og dej vyh dh gS vkSj ogka ij og de ls de 18 o”kksZ ls bl nqdku ij cSB jgk gSA bl xokg us viuh ftjg esa ;g dgk gS fd oknh ds ikl bl nqdku ds vykok mldh viuh fefYd;r dh vkSj dksbZ nqdku ugha gSA xokg Mh-M- 3 fQnkgqlSu us Hkh ;g dgk gS fd ftl nqdku ij og cSBrk gS og izfroknh dh nqdku gS vkSj mldk ekfyd oknh gSA gkfrevyh vyx nqdku ij cSBrk gS oknh ls ;g nqdku xokg Lo;a ds fy;s fdjk;s ij yh xbZ Fkh vkSj 13&14 o”kksZ ls ogha bl nqdku ij cSB jgk gS vkSj gkfrevyh us tc ls O;kikj ‘kq: fd;k rc ls og dej vyh okyh nqdku ij gh cSBrk gSA vCnqy djhe ds nks yM+ds mlh nqdku ij cSBuk crk;s gS ftl ij fd oknh vHkh dke dj jgk gSA xokg us viuh ftjg esa ;g dgk gS fd oknh dk yM+dk vCnqy jghe gS vkSj ;g Hkh dgk gS fd izfroknh ds llqjky dh egkjk.kk Vkdht ds ikl djhc 50 nqdkus gSA nqdku dk fdjk;k izfroknh ds }kjk Hkh nsuk crk;k gS vkSj Lo;a ds }kjk Hkh nsuk bl xokg us dgk gSA xokg Mh-M- 4 vCckl vyh dk ;g dguk gS izfroknh ds yksgs crZuksa dh nqdku gS crZuksa dh nqdku ij izfroknh ds firk cSBrs gS nqdku dk ekfyd oknh gSA izfroknh us mlds firk ds vkus ds ckn ,d vksj nqdku fdjk;s ij ys yh vkSj vCnqy jghe csdkj ugha gS o vius firk ds lkFk gh cSBrk gSA xokg Mh-M- 5 ‘kelqnhu us viuh lk{; esa ;g dgk gS fd mlds firk dk nsgkar gks x;k gS vkSj igys og vCnqy djhe dh nqdku ij fdjk;snkj Fks ftUgksaus ;g dgdj nqdku [kkyh djk;h fd mudks nqdku dh vko’;drk gSA oknh o izfroknh dh lk{; dk foospu bl izdkj gS fd oknh ds c;kuksa esa vkSj izfroknh dh lk{; ls Hkh ;g rks tkfgj gh gS fd oknh ds nks yM+ds gS vkSj oknh dk ;g dguk gS fd mldk cSBk jghe tc ls mlus i<+kbZ NksM+h gS csdkj gS vkSj ftl nqdku ij og vHkh dk;Z djrk gS og flQZ ,d Hkq[kkjh gS ftlesa fd og Lo;a dk;Z djrk gS vkSj mlds yM+ds ds fy;s mldks oknxzLr nqdku dh vko’;drk gS D;ksafd Hkq[kkjh okyh nqdku NksVh gS mlesa nks tus cSB ugha ldrs vkSj vius csVs :Lre ds fy;s dgk gS fd og vyx gh /ka/kk djrk gSA bl lanHkZ esa izfroknh dh lk{; ls rks ;g tkfgj gh gS fd og Lo;a fdlh deh:nhu dh nqdku ij O;olk; djrk gS vkSj tks nqdku oknh dh fefYd;r dh mlds ikl gS ml ij rks mldk firk cSBrk gS vkSj ogha dk;Z ns[krk gSA vr% tSlk fd izn’kZ 1 ls tkfgj gS fd izfroknh us oknxzLr nqdku oknh ls Lo;a ds O;olk; djus ds fy;s yh Fkh ysfdu vc og Lo;a rks O;olk; fdlh vU;= nqdku ij dj jgk gS vkSj bl nqdku ij mldk firk O;olk; dj jgk gS ,slh fLFkfr esa izfroknh pawfd vU;= O;olk; esa layXu gS vr% mldks bl oknxzLr nqdku dh dksbZ vko’;drk ugha gSA tcfd oknh dk yM+dk cM+k gS vkSj i<+kbZ fy[kk;h NksM+dj csdkj cSBk gqvk gS blfy;s mldks vius yM+ds O;olk; ds fy;s bl oknxzLr nqdku dh ;qfDr;qDr vko’;drk lgh izrhr gksrh gS D;ksafd og ml nqdku esa cSBdj viuk O;olk; pkyw djsxkA vxj izfroknh Lo;a ls bl nqdku dh bruh vf/kd vko’;drk gksrh rks og Lo;a gh bl nqdku ij O;olk; dj ldrk FkkA 40 o”kksZ ls tc oknh bl Hkq[kkjh okyh nqdku ij cSBdj dk;Z dj jgk gS rks mls vc bl nqdku dh vko’;drk dSls gks x;h ysfdu oknh dh vko’;drk mlus vius yM+ds ds fy;s O;olk; ds vk/kkj ij crk;k gS vkSj ;g vko’;drk tc mlds yM+ds us i<+kbZ NksM+ nh vkSj og csdkj gks x;k rHkh ls mRiUu gqbZ gS ,slh fLFkfr esa vxj 40 o”kksZ igys ls gh ekStwnk nqdku ij dk;Z dj jgk Fkk rks mlls vc tks mldh vko’;drk gS ml ij dksbZ foijhr izHkko ugha iM+rk gS D;ksafd vius csVs ds fy;s rks mldks vU; nqdku dh vko’;drk gSA izfroknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk ;gh Hkh dguk gS fd iwoZ esa Hkh oknh us ;g nqdku veh:nhu uke ds O;fDr dks fdjk;s ij ns j[kh Fkh vkSj ftlls Lo;a dh vko’;drk crkdj ;g nqdku [kkyh djk;h Fkh ;fn mldks t:jr gksrh rks og ml le; gh bl nqdku ij dk;Z dj ldrk Fkk ijUrq mudk ;g rdZ blfy;s ekuus ugha gS D;ksafd oknh us viuh lk{; esa ;g tkfgj fd;k gS fd ftl le; og oknxzLr nqdku [kkyh djk;h xbZ Fkh mlds ckn mldks y[kok gks x;k Fkk vkSj blfy;s og ml nqdku esa O;olk; ugha dj ldk FkkA bl lk{; ls ;g tkfgj gS fd oknh dks bl nqdku dh ;qfDr;qDr o ln~HkkoukiwoZd vko’;drk gSA tgka rd rqyukRed dfBukbZ dk iz’u gS oknh dk yM+dk i<+kbZ vkfn djds csdkj cSBk gqvk gS vkSj mlds ikl esa dksbZ O;olk; Hkh ugha gS ftlesa fd og viuh vkthfodk pyk lds ;k viuh vkthfodk dks c<+k ldsA ijUrq izfroknh pawfd nwljh nqdku ij O;olk; dj jgk gS vkSj oknxzLr nqdku ij mlds firk gh cSBdj O;olk; djrs gSA ftUgksaus fd ;g nqdku fdjk;s ij ugha yh gS ,slh lwjr esa vxj nqdku [kkyh gksrh gS rks izfroknh dks dksbZ dfbukbZ ugha gksxh D;ksafd og rks viuk O;olk; deh:nhu uke ds O;fDr dh nqdku ij dj gh jgk gSA izfroknh dk ;g dguk gS fd ‘kq: ls gh mlus vius firk ds fy;s gh nqdku dks fdjk;s ij yh Fkh blfy;s fo’oluh; izrhr ugha gksrk gS vxj mlds firk dks bl nqdku dh vko’;drk gksrh rks fdjk;kukek oknh o izfroknh ds e/; esa ugha fy[kk tkdj oknh o izfroknh ds firk fQnkgqlSu ds e/; fy[kk tkrk D;ksafd izfroknh us Lo;a dh vko’;drk ds vk/kkj ij gh ;g nqdku fdjk;s ij yh Fkh vkSj og nwljh txg viuk O;olk; djrk gSA vr% nqdku [kkyh gksus dh lwjr esa izfroknh dks dksbZ dfBukbZ ugha gksxhA vr% ;g nksuksa gh okn fcUnq oknh ds i{k esa rFkk izfroknh ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;s tkrs gSA okn fcUnq la[;k 3 %& bl okn fcUnq dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj Hkh oknh ij gSA oknh ih-M- 1 vCnqy djhe vkSj mlds }kjk izLrqr xokg ih-M- 2 vCnqy jghe o ih-M- 4 ca’khyky us vius c;kuksa esa ;g dgk gS fd oknxzLr nqdku esa izfroknh ugha cSBrk gS cfYd dksbZ vU; o`} O;fDr ml ij cSBrk gS ysfdu izfroknh Mh-M- 1 gkfrevyh us viuh lk{; esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd fQnkgqlSu mlds firk gS vkSj og bl nqdku ij lu~ 1971 ls cSB jgs gS vkSj mlds firk vkSj og ,d gh gS vkSj lkFk gh jgrs gSA xokg Mh-M- 2 jruyky] Mh-M- 3 fQnkgqlSu] Mh-M- 4 vCckl vyh o Mh-M- 5 ‘kelqnhu lHkh dh lk{; ls ;g tkfgj gS fd izfroknh ds firk gh oknxzLr nqdku ij cSB jgs gSA oknh dh lk{; ls ;g dgha Hkh tkfgj ugha gS fd izfroknh us fdlh vU; O;fDr dks ;g nqdku fdjk;s ij ns nh gks D;ksafd u rks dksbZ ,slk fdjk;kukek gh i=koyh ij gS vkSj u gh dksbZ izfroknh ds }kjk tkjh dh xbZ jlhn gh is’k dh xbZ gSA vr% izfroknh ds firk dh bl nqdku ij cSBrs gS blfy;s nj fdjk;s ij fdlh vU; O;fDr dks ;g nqdku fdjk;s ij nsuk lkfcr ugha gSA vr% ;g okn fcUnq oknh ds fo:} rFkk izfroknh ds i{k esa fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA okn fcUnq la[;k 5 %& lk{; ds mijksDr foospu ls oknh ;g lkfcr djus esa lQy jgk gS fd mldks oknxzLr nqdku dh ;qfDr;qDr ,oa ln~HkkoukiwoZd vko’;drk gS vr% blh vk/kkj ij ;g nkok fMdzh fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vkns’k vr% nkok oknh fo:} izfroknh fuEu izdkj ls fMdzh fd;k tkrk gS%& ¼1½ oknh izfroknh ls oknxzLr nqdku ftldk fd o.kZu nkos ds in la[;k 1 esa fd;k x;k gS mldk dCtk fu.kZ; gksus dh rkjh[k ls nks ekg dh vof/k esa izkIr djsxkA ¼2½ oknh izfroknh ls 900@& :i;s p<+s fdjk;s ds izkIr djsxk ,oa rkjh[k nk;nh nkos rkolwyh jde 6 izfr’kr okf”kZd dh nj ls C;kt Hkh mDr jde ij izkIr djsxk rFkk tks jde izfroknh }kjk U;k;ky; esa tek djk nh xbZ gS mlesa jde eqtjk dj nh tk;sxhA ¼3½ vfrfjDr U;k; ‘kqYd vnk gksus ij oknh izfroknh ls nqdku dk [kkyh dCtk izkIr djus rd 25@& :i;s ekgokj dh nj ls e/;orhZ ykHk Hkh izkIr djsxkA ¼4½ i{kdkjku okn dk viuk&viuk [kpkZ Lo;a ogu djsaxsA fMdzh ipkZ cuk;k tk;sA ,lMh@& ¼pUnzdkUrk xqIrk½ vij eqaflQ eftLVªsV izFke oxZ la[;k&1 HkhyokM+kA** Findings of the First Appellate Court of Addl. District Judge No. 1, Bhilwara:- ^^izLrqr gqbZ lk{; dks ns[kus ls Li”V gS fd ;g rF; nksuksa gh i{kksa dh lk{; ls mHkj dj lkeus vk;k gS fd oknh dh feyfd;r dh ,d ek= nqdku oknxzLr nqdku gSA oknh Lo;a ,d fdjk;s dh Hkq[kkjh uqek nqdku esa viuk O;olk; pyk jgk gSA nwljh rjQ izfroknh gkfrevyh us oknxzLr nqdku dks fdjk;s ij ysus ds mijkar dHkh ml ij ugha cSBk vkSj vkjEHk esa ml ij mldk firk fQnkgqlSu cSBrk jgk gS vkSj ogh O;kikj djrk gSA gkfrevyh rks ,d vU; nqdku ij cSB dj viuk vyx O;kikj djrk gSA oknh us nkok vius iq= dh vko’;drk ds vk/kkj ij izLrqr fd;k gS tcfd izfroknh gkfrevyh dk vfHkopu gS fd mls oknxzLr ifjlj dh vko’;drk mlds firk ds fy;s gS tks mlds ifjokj dk lnL; gSA oknh dk nkok izLrqr gqbZ lk{; ls izekf.kr gks jgk gS fd oknh dk iq= vCnqy jghe ds ikl /ka/kk djus ds fy;s dksbZ vyx ifjlj miyC/k ugha gS tcfd izfroknh us i;kZIr o fo’oluh; lk{; izLrqr djus ;g izekf.kr ugha djk;k gS fd mldk firk fQnkgqlSu mlds ifjokj dk lnL; gksA Mh-M- 5 lelqnhu tks fd izfroknh dk lk{kh gS] us Li”V :i ls Lohdkj fd;k gS fd fQnkgqlSu o gkfrevyh nksuksa vyx&vyx nqdkuksa ij cSB dj viuk&viuk O;olk; djrs gS vkSj nksuksa vyx jgrs gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa fo}ku vUoh{kk U;k;ky; us izLrqr gqbZ lk{; ds vk/kkj ij oknxzLr ifjlj dh vius iq= dks O;kikj djkus ds fy;s oknh dh vko’;drk ;qfDr;qDr ,oa ln~Hkkfod ekuus esa dksbZ Hkwy ugha dh gSA izfroknh us nqdku Lo;a dh vko’;drk ds fy;s fdjk;s ij yh Fkh vkSj vc U;k;ky; ds le{k bldh vko’;drk vius firk ds fy;s crk jgk gS tcfd firk mlls vyx jg dj Lo;a dk viuk O;kikj dj jgk gSA ekuuh; jktLFkku] e/;izns’k ,oa dukZVd mPp U;k;ky;ksa us Åij mfYyf[kr izdj.kksa esa ;g izfrikfnr fd;k gqvk gS fd edku ekfyd dks ;g funsZf’kr ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd og Lo;a ds LokfeRo ds ifjlj dks NksM+ ns vkSj fdjk;s ds ifjlj dk gh miHkksx djsA gLrxr ekeys esa rks izfroknh gkfrevyh dks oknxzLr ifjlj dh vko’;drk fcYdqy gh tkfgj ugha gksrh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa oknh ds iq= ds fy;s tks vko’;drk crkbZ xbZ og iwjh rjg ls ;qfDr;qDr ,oa ln~HkkoukiwoZd ikbZ tkrh gSA 17- tgka rd rqyukRed dfBukbZ dk iz’u gSA izfroknh gkfrevyh Lo;a rks vius llqj vFkok lkMw dh nqdku esa vyx ls viuk /ka/kk vkjke ls dj jgk gSA oknxzLr ifjlj dh mlds /ka/ks ds fy;s dksbZ vko’;drk gh ugha gS tcfd nwljh vksj oknh ds iq= ds ikl O;olk; djus ds fy;s dksbZ oSdfYid O;oLFkk ugha gSA orZeku esa mldk firk ftl fdjk;s ds ifjlj esa viuh nqdku pyk jgk gS og vR;ar ,d NksVh lh Hkq[kkjh gS vkSj mlesa firk o iq= nksuksa dk O;kikj djuk laHko ugha crk;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa rqyukRed :i ls ns[ksa rks Hkh oknh dh vko’;drk izfroknh dh rqyuk esa mfpr izrhr gksrh gSA 18- ;gka mYys[kuh; gS fd vkt dh rkjh[k esa oknh vCnqy djhe vkSj mldk ,d iq= :Lre vyh dh e`R;q gks pqdh gS vkSj izfroknh ds vuqlkj oknh ds ,d ek= cps iq= vCnqy jghe dks vc ;fn O;olk; djuk gS rks og vius firk dh fdjk;s’kqnk Hkq[kkjh esa Hkh O;kikj dj ldrk gSA vr% mls O;kikj djus ds fy;s cnyh gqbZ ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vc dksbZ ifjlj dh vko’;drk ugha jg xbZ gSA esjs er ls fdjk;snkj Lo;a fdjk;s’kqnk ifjlj dk miHkksx ugha dj fdjk;s’kqnk ifjlj dk dCtk fdlh vU; dks ns ns vkSj Lo;a dks fdjk;s’kqnk ifjlj dh vko’;drk ugha gks vkSj blds ckotwn oknh edku ekfyd ls vis{kk djs fd og Lo;a ds LokfeRo dh nqdku gksrs gq, Hkh ,d NksVh lh Hkq[kkjhuqek fdjk;s dh nqdku esa viuk O;kikj dj vkthfodk pyk;s rks bls fdlh Hkh izdkj ls ;qfDr;qDr ,oa mfpr ugha dgk tk ldrkA vkt dh fLFkfr esa pkgs vCnqy jghe dks O;olk; djus ds fy;s vius firk dh fdjk;s’kqnk Hkq[kkjh miyC/k gks rks Hkh mls blds fy;s ck/; ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd og Lo;a ds LokfeRo dh nqdku dks NksM+ dj fdjk;s dh NksVh lh Hkq[kkjh esa viuk O;olk; djsA 19- esjs er ls fo}ku vUoh{kk U;k;ky; us fook|d la[;k 2 o 4 dk fu.kZ; djus esa fdlh Hkh izdkj ls dksbZ Hkwy ugha dh gSA 20- pawfd bl ekeys esa izfroknh us vius tokc nkos esa gh ;g ckr Lohdkj dj j[kh gS vkSj Mh-M- 1 ds :i esa l’kiFk lk{; izLrqr dh gS fd tc ls mlus nqdku fdjk;s ij yh rc ls fdjk;s’kqnk nqdku ij mldk firk fQnkgqlSu gh cSBrk gS vkSj ogh O;olk; djrk gSA fdjk;s’kqnk nqdku mlus Lo;a dh vko’;drk ds fy;s fdjk;s ij yh Fkh ysfdu og Lo;a ‘kq: ls vU; nqdku ij cSB dj viuk vyx O;olk; dj jgk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g Lohd`r rF; gS fd izfroknh us oknxzLr ifjlj dks fdjk;s ij ysrs gh ml ij dCtk vU; O;fDr dks lkSai fn;k FkkA vc iz’u ;g mBrk gS fd og vU; O;fDr fdjk;snkj ds ifjokj dk lnL; gksdj fdjk;snkj dh rjQ ls gh dkfct gS ;k dksbZ mifdjk;snkj gSA ;g lqLFkkfir fof/k gS fd fdjk;snkj }kjk edku dk dCtk NksM+ nsus vFkok mifdjk;snkj j[k ysus ds ekeyksa esa edku ekfyd dkls bruk fl= dj nsuk i;kZIr gS fd oknxzLr ifjlj dk dCtk fdjk;snkj ds ikl ugha jgkA ;fn edku ekfyd ;g rF; fl} djk nsrk gS rks blds ckn ;g fl} djkus dk Hkkj fdjk;snkj ij f’kV gks tkrk gS fd dCtk ftl O;fDr ds ikl gSA og fdjk;snkj ds ?kj dk lnL; gS ;k fdjk;snkj dh rjQ ls gh dkfct gSA gLrxr ekeys esa izfroknh ds gh lk{kh Mh-M- 5 lelqnhu us ;g Li”V :i ls dgk gS fd izfroknh gkfrevyh o mldk firk fQnkgqlSu nksuksa vyx&vyx jgrs gS vkSj vyx&vyx /ka/kk djrs gSA tkfgj gS ,slh fLFkfr esa gkfrevyh ds firk fQnkgqlSu u rks gkfrevyh ds ifjokj dk lnL; ekuk tk ldrk vkSj u gh gkfrevyh dh rjQ ls oknxzLr ifjlj ij dkfct gksuk ekuk tk ldrkA fo}ku vUoh{kk U;k;ky; us bl vk/kkj ij ;g fook|d oknh ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;k gS fd oknh us dCtk ls nwljs O;fDr dk gksuk izekf.kr djk fn;k ysfdu mifdjk;snkjh ds laca/k esa fdjk;k ukek ;k fdjk;s dh jlhnsa vkfn dksbZ Bksl izek.k izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA esjs er ls fo}ku vUoh{kk U;k;ky; dk ;g er fof/kuqlkj mfpr ugha gSA fdlh edku ekfyd ds fy;s ;g dk;Z vlaHko lk gS fd og mifdjk;snkj ls lacaf/kr fdjk;k fpVBh vFkok fdjk;k vnk;xh dh jlhns <aw< dj U;k;ky; esa izekf.kr djkosA /kkjk 13¼1½¼bZ½ ds vuqlkj pkgs fdjk;snkj oknxzLr ifjlj dks mifdjk;snkjh ij ugha ns ysfdu ;fn mlus oknxzLr ifjlj dk dCtk fdlh vU; dks lkSai fn;k gS rks ek= bl vk/kkj ij Hkh fdjk;snkj ls ifjlj [kkyh djkus dk edku ekfyd vf/kdkjh gks tkrk gSA vr% eSa bl ekeys esa fook|d la[;k 3 ij fo}ku vUoh{kk U;k;ky; }kjk fn;s x;s fu.kZ; ls lger ugha gwaA esjs er ls ;g fook|d Hkh oknh ds i{k esa ,oa izfroknh ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;k tkuk pkfg;s FkkA 21- lEiw.kZ foospuk ds mijkar esjk ;g fu”d”kZ gS fd bl ekeys esa fo}ku vUoh{kk U;k;ky; us oknh vCnqy djhe ds ;qfDr;qDr :i ls nqdku [kkyh djk;s tkus ij izfroknh dks dksbZ dfBukbZ ugha eku dj dksbZ Hkwy ugha dh gS ysfdu vUoh{kk U;k;ky; us fdjk;k vnk djus esa pwd vkSj fdjk;s’kqnk ifjlj dk dCtk vU; dks lkSai nsus ds vk/kkj dks oknh ds i{k esa fu.khZr ugha djus esa vo’; Hkwy dh gSA esjs er ls bl ekeys esa oknh u flQZ /kkjk 13¼1½¼,p½ ds vk/kkj ij izfroknh ds fo:} csn[kyh dk vf/kdkjh gS cfYd /kkjk 13¼1½¼,½ vkSj /kkjk 13¼1½¼bZ½ ds vk/kkj ij Hkh izfroknh ls oknxzLr ifjlj [kkyh djkus dk vf/kdkjh gSA ifj.kkeLo:i esa bl ekeys esa izfroknh gkfrevyh }kjk izLrqr dh xbZ vihy dks Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha ikrk gaw vkSj oknh vCnqy djhe }kjk izLrqr vihy Lohdkj ;ksX; ikrk gwaA vkns’k 22- vr% izfroknh gkfrevyh }kjk izLrqr vihy fo:} vCnqy djhe la[;k 19@98 vLohdkj dh tkrh gSA oknh vCnqy djhe dh vihy la[;k 26@99 fo:} izfroknh gkfrevyh Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA fo}ku vUoh{kk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; o fMdzh fnukad 24-4-85 dks iq”V fd;k tkrk gS ,oa ;Fkkor j[kk tkrk gSA lkFk gh fook|d la[;k 1 o 3 ds laca/k esa ikfjr fd;s x;s fu.kZ; dks vikLr djrs gq, fook|d la[;k 1 o 3 dks Hkh oknh ds i{k esa ,oa izfroknh ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA fo}ku vUoh{kk U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; o fMdzh esa bruk la’kks/ku fd;k tkrk gS fd oknh dks oknxzLr ifjlj [kkyh dj fjDr dCtk nks ekg ds i’pkr~ izfroknh laHkyk;sA i=koyh v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks Hksth tk;sA ,lMh@& ¼fot; dqekj O;k;½ vij ftyk U;k;k/kh’k la[;k 1 HkhyokM+kA** 4. While admitting the present second appeal of the defendant tenant, a coordinate bench of this court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration by this Court on 3/10/2006:- “(1) Whether the finding of the learned appellate court on issue no.1 is outcome of non-reading of record specially consisting of the tender and challan whereby the rent for the months of October, November and December, 1982 had been deposited on 13.10.1982 itself? (2) Whether the finding of the learned lower appellate court on issue no.3 is bad for want of requisite pleadings and evidence? (3) Whether the finding on issue no.2 is vitiated on account of non-reading of the admissions of the plaintiff and his son about the suit shop having been got vacated on the ground of personal requirement and despite Abdul Rahim having left his studies and having made up his mind to run the business, it was relet to the appellate at the enhanced rent? (4) Whether in view of the subsequent events consisting of death of plaintiff Abdul Karim and his son Rustam Ali, on account of the plaintiff's son Abdul Rahim having not amended the plaint to take appropriate pleadings with respect to the shop and business being run by the deceased plaintiff, the alleged bonafide requiement ceased to exist and the learned courts below are in error in decreeing the suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement?” 5. Mr. R.R.Nagori, learned Sr. Advocate was at pain in trying to convince this Court that the findings of the courts below, albeit concurrent, were off the mark, as the evidence led by the plaintiff and his witnesses did not match the pleadings made before the court and secondly the original tenant Hatim Ali could not have sublet the suit shop in favour of his own father Fida Hussain, who was running the business in the suit shop right from the beginning of the tenancy in the year 1976 and also the so called need for business of the landlord's son, Abdul Rahim also got eclipsed with the death of said Abdul Rahim during the course of litigation and, therefore, the concurrent eviction decree deserves to be set aside. He relied on a large number of judgments in support of his submissions, but the detailed discussion of all of them is not considered necessary here, except a few, which will be discussed hereinafter in view of the fact that discussions made in all the said judgments cited at the bar by Mr. R.R.Nagori of this Court and Supreme Court & the contentions raised on behalf of the defendant-tenant have already been settled in other cases decided by this court on these very issues, which cases are also being referred in brief hereinafter. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Bhansali, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff-landlord also relied upon a large number of judgments in support of his contentions and again the discussion of which is not found necessary, except a few judgments found to be relevant, which will be discussed hereinafter at appropriate place. 7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties at length and upon perusal of the judgments cited at the bar and record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present second appeal of the defendant tenant has no force and same deserves to be dismissed and the questions of law, as quoted above, deserve to be answered against the appellant-defendant-tenant and in favour of plaintiff-landlord. The reasons are as follows. 8. The settled legal position is that the need of the landlord and his family members as on the date of filing of the suit is required to be seen and that is required to be established and with the subsequent events happening during the long course of litigation including the death of a family member, for whose need the eviction was sought, does not alter the position and eviction decree can be maintained. Secondly, equally settled legal position is that if the eviction decree can be upheld on any one ground under Section 13(1) of the Rent Control Act, 1950 then such decree deserves to be upheld, even if the findings of the learned courts below for other ground or grounds is not found to be sustainable that would not upset the eviction decree, though it may be mentioned here that this court has not found any such reason in the present case to upset the findings of the courts below concurrently arrived at, on any of the grounds of eviction under Section 13(1) of the Act established by the plaintiff landlord against the defendant tenant. 9. That as far as the question of subletting is concerned, it is neither provided in law that subletting cannot be in favour of close relative of the tenant, may be his father or brother, as the case may be and it is not necessary for the landlord to prove actual passing of the consideration of rent by the sub-lettee in favour of the main tenant as such facts are within the special knowledge of the tenant and sub-tenant and may not even come to the knowledge of the landlord and, therefore, such fact cannot be proved by the landlord. 10. From the findings of facts found by both the courts below in the present case, this Court is satisfied that the eviction decree has been rightly granted by the courts below, based on relevant evidence and pleadings and any variance in the pleadings and evidence as sought to be emphasized by the learned counsel for the defendant tenant is not a gap which will render the eviction decree non est, like not specifying the name of the sub tenant and not mentioning about actual receipt of rent from the sub tenant etc. not specifically averred in the plaint, would not render the evidence led by the plaintiff landlord inadmissible if the landlord proves the sub-tenancy in favour of even a close relative like the father in the present case, which will not amount to acquiescence nor waiver on the part of the plaintiff landlord, if he does not specifically aver the details of such subtenancy or sub-lettee. 11. Expressing similar view in the case of Shakuntala Bai & ors. vs. Narain Das & Ors. 11. Expressing similar view in the case of Shakuntala Bai & ors. vs. Narain Das & Ors. - (2004) 5 SCC 772 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- “1. It is a shocking case. A suit for eviction of a tenant was instituted more than 42 years back in March, 1962 for the bona fide need of carrying on business by the owner landlord but his widow and sons are still knocking the doors of court of justice. During the pendency of the appeal filed by the tenant the landlord died leaving a widow and minor sons but this, the High Court thought, came to the advantage of the tenant, rendering the suit liable for dismissal, little realizing that they also needed some place to carry on business for survival. Such extreme views erode the faith of people in the judicial system prompting them to take recourse to extra judicial methods to recover possession of their property. 15. As the preamble shows the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 has been enacted for expeditious trial of eviction cases on the ground of bona fide requirement of landlords and generally to regulate and control eviction of tenants. If the subsequent event like the death of the landlord is to be taken note of at every stage till the decree attains finality, there will be no end to litigation. By the time a second appeal gets decided by the High Court, generally a long period elapses and on such a principle if during this period the landlord who instituted the proceedings dies, the suit will have to be dismissed without going into merits. The same thing may happen in a fresh suit filed by the heirs and it may become an unending process. Taking into consideration the subsequent events may, at times, lead to rendering the whole proceedings taken infructuous and colossal waste of public time. There is no warrant for interpreting a Rent Control legislation in such a manner the basic object of which is to save harassment of tenants from unscrupulous landlords. The object is not to deprive the owners of their properties for all times to come.” 12. Dealing with the case of main tenant and sub-tenant – father, as in the of present case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Chander vs. Om Prakash & Anr. The object is not to deprive the owners of their properties for all times to come.” 12. Dealing with the case of main tenant and sub-tenant – father, as in the of present case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Chander vs. Om Prakash & Anr. - (2003) 12 SCC 728 granted eviction decree deprecating unnecessary interference by the High Court in the findings of fact of the courts below in the following manner:- “1. The unsuccessful landlord before the High Court is before us in this appeal. The appellant filed a petition seeking eviction of Respondents 1 and 2 on the ground of sub-letting. Respondent 1 is the father of Respondent 2. The Rent Controller, after considering the evidence placed on record in the light of the pleadings of the parties, allowed the petition and directed eviction of Respondents 1 and 2 from the premises in question. The respondents took up the matter in appeal. The Appellate Authority by a detailed and well-considered order, dismissed the appeal concurring with the findings recorded by the Rent Controller. Aggrieved by and not satisfied with the order of the Appellate Authority, the respondents filed revision petition before the High Court. The High Court allowed the revision petition reversing the concurrent findings recorded by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority. Hence this appeal by the landlord. 5. This Court proceeded to say further that unless the High Court comes to the conclusion that the concurrent findings recorded by the two courts below are wholly perverse and erroneous, which manifestly appear to be unjust, there should be no interference. In the case on hand also the two courts below have appreciated evidence placed on record and on a proper appreciation concluded that the case of subletting, as pleaded by the appellant, is proved. In our view, the High Court was not justified in interfering with such concurrent finding. It is not shown on behalf of the respondents herein that the findings recorded by the two courts below were either perverse or not based on evidence. We must also keep in mind that when the appellant established the fact that Respondent 2 was carrying on his activities as UTI agent in the part of the premises exclusively by him, it was for the respondent to establish that his possession on that premises was not as a subtenant. We must also keep in mind that when the appellant established the fact that Respondent 2 was carrying on his activities as UTI agent in the part of the premises exclusively by him, it was for the respondent to establish that his possession on that premises was not as a subtenant. Merely because Respondent 1 is the father of Respondent 2 there cannot be any justification to say that it was not a case of sub-letting.” 13. In Joginder Singh Sodi vs. Amar Kaur – (2005) 1 SCC 31, the Supreme Court clearly held that passing of the monetary consideration from the sub-tenant to main tenant was not necessary. The following observations from para 16, 17 & 22 of the judgment are quoted below for ready reference:- “16. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, however, is that even if it is assumed that one of the ingredients of sub-letting was established, the second ingredient, namely, parting of possession with 'monetary consideration' was not established. The counsel urged that there is no evidence on record that any amount was paid either in cash or in kind by respondent No.2 to respondent No. 1. In absence of such evidence sub-tenancy cannot be said to be established and the landlady was not entitled to get an order of eviction against the tenant. 17. We are unable to appreciate the contention. As observed by this Court in Bharat Sales Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India. [1998] 3 SCC 1, sub-tenancy or sub-letting comes into existence when the tenant gives up possession of the tenanted accommodation, wholly or in part, and puts another person in exclusive possession thereof. This arrangement comes about obviously under a mutual agreement or understanding between the tenant and the person to whom the possession is so delivered. In this process, the landlord is kept out of the scene. Rather, the scene is enacted behind the back of the landlord, concealing the overt acts and transferring possession clandestinely to a person who is an utter stranger to the landlord, in the sense that the landlord had not let out the premises to that person nor had he allowed or consented to his entering into possession of that person, instead of the tenant, which ultimately reveals to the landlord that tenant to whom the property was let out has put some other person into possession of that property. In such a situation, it would be difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, the contract or agreement or understanding between the tenant and the subtenant. It would also be difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, that the person to whom the property had been sub-let had paid monetary consideration to the tenant. Payment of rent, undoubtedly, is an essential element of lease or sub-lease. It may be paid in cash or in kind or may have been paid or promised to be paid. It may have been paid in lump sum in advance covering the period for which the premises is let out or sub-let or it may have been paid or promised to be paid periodically. Since payment of rent or monetary consideration may have been made secretly, the law does not require such payment to be proved by affirmative evidence and the court is permitted to draw its own inference upon the facts of the case proved at the trial, including the delivery of exclusive possession to infer that the premises were sub-let. 22. It was then contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No.2 was the son of respondent No.l and since he was not a stranger, no presumption could be raised that he was a sub-tenant. We are unable to uphold even that contention. In our judgment, for deciding the question whether the tenant had created sub-tenancy, the relationship between the tenant and sub-tenant is not material. There is no privity of contract between the landlady and respondent No.2. He was, therefore, a 'stranger' to the landlady. She let the property to respondent No.l who was the tenant. Respondent No.l was bound to occupy the property as per the rent note executed by him wherein even undertaking was given by him that he would not part with possession or allow any other person to occupy the property. In spite of the rent note and undertaking, if without the written consent of the landlady, respondent No.l had inducted respondent No.2 as his tenant or had parted with possession in favour of respondent No.2, who was staying separately and yet found to be in exclusive possession of the shop, sub-tenancy was established. 14. Summarizing the criteria of proving the subletting, the Supreme Court in Celina Coelho Pereira & Ors. 14. Summarizing the criteria of proving the subletting, the Supreme Court in Celina Coelho Pereira & Ors. vs. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar & Ors – (2010) 1 SCC 217 held as under:- “The legal position that emerges from case law can be summarised thus: (i) In order to prove mischief of sub-letting as a ground for eviction under rent control laws, two ingredients have to be established, (1) parting with possession of tenancy or part of it by the tenant in favour of a third party with exclusive right of possession, and (2) that such parting with possession has been done without the consent of the landlord and in lieu of compensation or rent. (ii) Inducting a partner or partners in the business or profession by a tenant by itself does not amount to sub-letting. However, if the purpose of such partnership is ostensible and a deed of partnership is drawn to conceal the real transaction of sub-letting, the court may tear the veil of partnership to find out the real nature of transaction entered into by the tenant. (iii) The existence of deed of partnership between the tenant and alleged sub-tenant or ostensible transaction in any other form would not preclude the landlord from bringing on record material and circumstances, by adducing evidence or by means of cross-examination, making out a case of sub-letting or parting with possession in tenancy premises by the tenant in favour of a third person. (iv) If the tenant is actively associated with the partnership business and retains the control over the tenancy premises with him, may be along with partners, the tenant may not be said to have parted with possession. (v) Initial burden of proving sub-letting is on the landlord but once he is able to establish that a third party is in exclusive possession of the premises and that tenant has no legal possession of the tenanted premises, the onus shifts to the tenant to prove the nature of occupation of such third party and that he (tenant) continues to hold legal possession in tenancy premises. (vi) In other words, initial burden lying on the landlord would stand discharged by adducing prima facie proof of the fact that a party other than the tenant was in exclusive possession of the premises. A presumption of sub-letting may then be raised and would amount to proof unless rebutted.” 15. (vi) In other words, initial burden lying on the landlord would stand discharged by adducing prima facie proof of the fact that a party other than the tenant was in exclusive possession of the premises. A presumption of sub-letting may then be raised and would amount to proof unless rebutted.” 15. This Court in Sunder Lal & ors. vs. Harish Kumar & Anr. SBCSA No.222/2001 decided on 22/8/2012, dealing with the case of sub-letting to a close relative, decreed the eviction of tenant in the following manner:- “11. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties at length and upon perusal of the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the present second appeal filed by the appellants-plaintiffs deserves to be allowed and the substantial questions of law, framed above, deserve to be answered in favour of appellants-plaintiffs and against the defendants tenants. On an overall reading of the reasons given by the learned lower appellate court, this Court is satisfied that the findings returned the learned lower appellate court in the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.05.2001 are perverse and not sustainable. The suit seeking eviction deserves to be decreed, which the learned trial court had rightly decreed in favour of appellants-plaintiffs. 12. A bare perusal of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents-defendants in the case of Bhomale Ram Vs. Mahesh Chand & Anr. (supra) is concerned, the said case is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case, where not only parting with possession of the suit shop is there, may be to his own younger real brother, the original tenant, Chandu Lal has already started his separate business in different premises and in the face of documentary evidence of rent-note (Ex.1) and subsequent rent receipts, issued in the name of original tenant, Chandu Lal only, this Court is satisfied that the learned trial court was justified in decreeing the eviction suit filed by the appellants plaintiffs and the learned lower appellate court had erred in reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial court. 13. Mr. Rajeev Purohit, learned counsel for the appellants-defendants-tenants, also relied upon judgments of this Court in the case of Hardev Vs. Jaidev through his Legal Representatives, reported in 2000 (1) RLW Raj. 407 in which a coordinate bench of this Court held that “.... 13. Mr. Rajeev Purohit, learned counsel for the appellants-defendants-tenants, also relied upon judgments of this Court in the case of Hardev Vs. Jaidev through his Legal Representatives, reported in 2000 (1) RLW Raj. 407 in which a coordinate bench of this Court held that “.... in the present case the tenant-defendant-appellant who allows his mother and his brother's wife to look after his business on the premises in question cannot be held to have parted with the possession of the premises in dispute so as to entail on him the liability of eviction under Section 13 (1) (e) of Act No.17 of 1950. It is also held that both the courts below have committed substantial error of law in not raising presumption under the Hindu Law to the effect that the brothers are presumed to be living jointly unless otherwise is proved by cogent and convincing evidence by landlord-plaintiff-respondent.” The facts of this case are clearly distinguishable. Here, the original tenant is doing entirely separate business in different premises and the defendant-Harish Kumar has not even set up a case before the courts below that he was doing business only on behalf of his brother, Chandu Lal, the original tenant. Harish Kumar holds the trade licence in his own name and there is no partnership in business in the suit premises, therefore, this case law is of little avail to the defendants appellants. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.S. Sulochana Vs. C. Dharmalingam, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 180 , in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 3 and 4 as under: “3. Examining the profile of view taken by the High Court that the offending sub-letting must be by the tenant sought to be evicted himself, and not by his predecessor, it appears to be blemishless. Section 10(2) opens with the words “A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant” and provides that if the tenant ha created a subtenancy without the written consent of the landlord, he will be liable to be evicted. Pray who is the 'tenant' whom the landlord wants to evict? That tenant is the respondent. Did he violate Section 10 (2)(ii) (a) and sub-let the rented premises? The answer is 'no'. It is of little use to give the answer, not he, but his predessors, his late father, had sub-let the premises. Pray who is the 'tenant' whom the landlord wants to evict? That tenant is the respondent. Did he violate Section 10 (2)(ii) (a) and sub-let the rented premises? The answer is 'no'. It is of little use to give the answer, not he, but his predessors, his late father, had sub-let the premises. When the statute says the tenant who is sought to be evicted must be guilty of the contravention, the court cannot say, 'guilt of his predecessor in interest' will suffice. The flouting of the law, the sin under the Rent Act must be the sin of the tenant sought to be evicted, and not that of his father or predecessor in interest. Respondent inherited the tenancy, not the sin, if any, of his father. The law in its wisdom seeks to punish the guilty who commits the sin, and not his son who is innocent of the rent law offence. It being a penal provision in the sense that it visits the the violator with the punishment of eviction, it must be strictly construed, for it causes less misery to be sheltered in a jail, than to be shelterless without. Be that as it may the conclusion recorded by the High Court is fault-free. 4. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of High Court in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.” The aforesaid Supreme Court decision is also, with great respects, distinguishable. Here there is no predecessor in title for whose act of sub-letting, his son or brother is faced with an eviction decree. Both brothers, defendant, Chandu Lal, the original tenant, who committed the act of subletting and sublettee, Harish Kumar, was arrayed as defendant and faced the eviction decree, as established grounds for eviction under Section 13 (1) (e) of the 1950 Act. Therefore, the aforementioned decision rather helps the plaintiffs-landlord here rather than the defendants-tenants. 15. Accordingly, the present second appeal filed by the appellants-plaintiffs-landlord is allowed and substantial questions of law, framed above, are answered in favour of plaintiffs-landlord and against the respondent-defendant-tenant. No costs.” 16. Therefore, the aforementioned decision rather helps the plaintiffs-landlord here rather than the defendants-tenants. 15. Accordingly, the present second appeal filed by the appellants-plaintiffs-landlord is allowed and substantial questions of law, framed above, are answered in favour of plaintiffs-landlord and against the respondent-defendant-tenant. No costs.” 16. On the question of bonafide need of the landlord to be established as on the date of filing of the suit, this Court in LR's of Rajendra Kumar vs. Balchand & Ors – SBCSA No. 38/2015 decided on 9/4/2015 held as under:- “4. Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Narendra Thanvi, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submitted that the controversy is squarely covered by the decision of this court in the case of Naresh Chand Vs. Smt. Premlata Bakshi reported in 2009 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 423, in which this Court has held that bona fide need of the plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit has to be established and same continues even after death of person(s) for whose need the eviction was sought. The relevant extract of the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the plaintiff is quoted herein below for ready reference: - “10. Since bonafide need was claimed by the landlord – plaintiff for her husband as well as her son as stated above on the date of filing of the suit and the Courts below concurrently found that the said bonafide need existed on the date of filing suit and while the trial Court granted the decree for partial eviction, the first appellate Court granted the decree of entire residential house in question, the said findings of facts which are based on relevant evidence and material did not deserve to be disturbed at all and the second appeal was liable to be dismissed at the threshold as no substantial question of law could be said to be arising in the present appeal. However, the fact remains that since this appeal came to be admitted by this Court by framing the aforesaid question of law and which remained pending here for long number of 18 years in this Court, subsequent developments in the form of death of husband of the plaintiff and sale of property by her arose. However, the fact remains that since this appeal came to be admitted by this Court by framing the aforesaid question of law and which remained pending here for long number of 18 years in this Court, subsequent developments in the form of death of husband of the plaintiff and sale of property by her arose. The question which arises now in these circumstances for consideration by this Court in the changed circumstances is as to whether now the purchaser of the suit property can get fruits of the decree passed by the Courts below and can get the suit premises evicted or not or whether the defendant– tenant should be allowed to remain in the property for next 20 to 30 years after the new purchaser of the property is asked to file a fresh suit establishing his own bonafide need of the said suit property or on other grounds of eviction as as specified in the Rent Control Act. 19. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that not only the question framed by this Court while admitting the present appeal deserves to be answered against the appellant – defendant by holding that the bonafide need of the plaintiff continues even after death of her husband as the bonafide need was claimed for her husband as well as her son and it deserves to be further held that the purchaser of the suit property during the pendency of present second appeal who steps into the shoes of the plaintiff shall be entitled to vacant possession of the suit property in pursuance of the decree passed by two Courts below which is liable to be upheld by this Court as no perversity in those findings is found by this Court. In view of the fact that the bonafide need of the plaintiff – landlord on the date of filing of the suit is relevant, subsequent events in the form of sale of said property does not ipso facto up-set the decree of eviction. The attornment in favour of purchaser was automatic and did not depend upon the acceptance of the same by the defendant – tenant. The appellant – defendant is, therefore, not entitled to any relief in the present second appeal, which is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.” 17. The attornment in favour of purchaser was automatic and did not depend upon the acceptance of the same by the defendant – tenant. The appellant – defendant is, therefore, not entitled to any relief in the present second appeal, which is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.” 17. As against aforesaid settled legal position, the old judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant like in the case of Jagan Nath vs. Chandra Bhan – (1988) 3 SCC 57 and Dipak Banerjee vs. Lilabati Chakraborty – (1987) 4 SCC about the need to prove the exclusive possession of the sub-tenant to the exclusion of original tenant in establishing the ground of subletting, which were sought to be emphasized by the learned counsel for disproving the sub-letting as father was the sub-tenant in the present case, such precedents are of little help to the defendant tenant in the present case in view of the aforesaid later judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court. 18. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the present second appeal of the defendant tenant deserves dismissal and same is hereby dismissed. The substantial questions of law framed above are answered in favour of the respondent-plaintiff-landlord and against the appellant-defendant tenant. The appellant-defendant-tenant shall pay the cost of Rs.20,000/-to the respondent-plaintiff-landlord in view of the long drawn litigation in which the respondent plaintiff was dragged despite eviction decree of the two courts below. 19. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/landlord/respondents within a period of six months from today i.e. on or before 30/6/2016 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs.5000/-per month commencing from January, 2016 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the plaintiffs/respondents, and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period granted 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 plaintiff/respondents, within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the plaintiff/respondents, 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 premises 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 and such third parties will also be bound by this decree. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within three months from today, 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 plaintiffs/respondents/landlord on or before 30/6/2016 or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the plaintiffs/respondents shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned courts below and both the parties forthwith.