Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned Counsel for the

respondent.

2. The appellant is aggrieved against the concurrent findings of the two Courts below recorded in the Judgment s of the trial Court and appellate Court dated 15th Oct., 2001 and 9th May, 2003.

3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on 13th Sept., 1997 against the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff expired and his legal representatives were taken on record, but subsequently, except one legal representative Bhuramal rest of the legal representatives of said Gyan Chand got their names deleted and, therefore, only one of the sons of the original plaintiff Bhuramal remained as party plaintiff .

4. The suit for eviction was filed on the ground of default, sub-letting and creating nuisance in the premises by the defendant tenant. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court held that the defendant has committed default in payment of rent and further held that the defendant No. 1 sub-letted the suit premises. However, the suit of the plaintiff for eviction of the tenant on the ground of creating nuisance was dismissed.