SMT. SANTOSH Vs. SHRI SHIV CHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heart learned counsel for the parties. The Suit for ejectment was decreed against the appellants by the learned Additional Munsif, Bhilwra by his jndgment dated Sept. 19, 1978. An Appeal was preferred and the learned District Judge, Bhilwara, by his judgment dated Aug. 29, 1980, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree for ejectment. Hence this second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellants.

(2.) Before the learned District Judge, findings on issues No. 2 and 6 were only challenged. Issue No. 2 relates to sub-letting after material alteration and Issue No. 6 relates to permanent tenancy of the defendant. The learned Additional Munsif decided both the issues in favour of the respondents and against the defendants. The learned District Judge, after noticing the relevant case law and the relevant evidence on record, recorded a finding that after making material alteration one portion of the demises premises was rented out by defendant No. 1 to Sunderlal and other to Hari Singh. He, accordingly decided issues No. 2 in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. So far as Issue No. 6 was concerned, according to the learned District Judge, the defendant No. 1 had failed to establish that the premises were rented out to him on the basis of permanent tenancy Having perused the appellate judgment. I am satisfied that there is no legal infirmity in the finding arrived arrived at by the learned District Judge in respect of issues No. 2 and 6. The finding on Issue No. 2 is based on evidence on record. It is not vitiated any count whatsoever. No evidence was led, on the basis of which, permanent tenancy could be inferred in favour of the defendant No 1. In my opinion, this appeal does not involve any substantial question of law.

(3.) For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal has no force and it is accordingly, dismissed summarily.