Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.-This second appeal of tenant is directed against the Judgment and decree of eviction granted by first Appellate Court dated 211.1993 whereby the Judgment and order of trial Court dated 17.09.1990 rejecting the suit was set aside.

.2. The substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission of this appeal on 13.01.1997 are as under:-

.(i) Whether the decree of eviction on the ground of subletting is perverse?

.(ii) Whether the appellants ever transferred or handed over exclusive possession of the part of shop to the alleged tailor?

3. Since, the substantial questions of law framed by this Court are relating to ground of subletting only and the reversal by first appellate Court is also on that ground, the present second appeal of the tenant is to be decided on this ground alone.

4. The suit premises in question, a shop in two portions, one inner portion covered with stone pattis and other outer portion covered with tin-shed was given on rent to the defendant Jamnalal at monthly rent of Rs. 90/-on 111.1997 vide Exhibit-1 rent-deed. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-landlord on 04.02.1983 firstly on the ground of default and personal necessity, but lateron by amendment in the suit, the ground of subletting was also added. It was the case of landlord-plaintiff that the defendant-tenant had without permission of landlord gave part of shop to Chandalal son of Jagan Nath as sub-tenant and, therefore, he was liable to be evicted under Section 13(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950.

5. The learned trial Court rejected the suit finding that the exclusive possession of the portion of shop in question could not be said to have been given to the sub-tenant Chanda Lal. However the first Appellate Court reversed the said finding and decreed the suit for eviction by its Judgment dated 211.1993 holding that a part of shop was sublet to Chanda Lal without permission of the landlord for consideration and, therefore, the original tenant was liable to be evicted and the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of eviction in this regard.

6. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment of first appellate Court and decree of eviction on the aforesaid ground, the tenant is before this Court in the second appeal on the aforesaid substantial questions of law.

7. Mr. Mandhana, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-tenant urged that neither the pleadings of the plaintiff in this regard in Para 3-A of the plaint were clear and while in the plaint, the plaintiff-landlord urged that the portion of shop was given to sub-tenant Chanda Lal; whereas in the statement of PW. 1 landlord Abdul Rehman himself as well as PW. 3 Chanda Lal, alleged sub-tenant, it has come that he was only working as tailor at the Thadi of the shop i.e., outer portion covered with tin-shed; therefore, according to him what was proved was not even contained in the pleadings. He further submitted that in the statements of landlord Abdul Rehman, it has come that he was an illiterate person and only knew Urdu language and, therefore, Exhibits 2,3,4 and 5, papers of diary in which entries relating to payment of rent by the sub-tenant were contained in the hand-writing of landlord Jamnalal in Hindi language could not be proved by the landlord Abudl Rehman. The landlord himself had admitted that said Chanda Lal was only sitting at Thadi, outside portion of shop and Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 were given to him by sub-tenant Chanda Lal himself whereas PW. 3 Chanda Lal in his statement has clearly denied the same. He further submitted that not only that it was not proved that exclusive possession of portion of shop was given to the sub-tenant Chanda Lal, but also allegation that it was for some consideration resulting into relationship of tenant-lessor and lessee was not proved before the trial Court and, therefore, the trial Court had rightly rejected the suit of the plaintiff and the same was wrongly reversed by the first appellate Court. He relies upon the J