ARUN MADAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS civil second appeal under Section 100, C. P. C. , 1908 has been preferred to this court against the judgment and decree, dated 7th March, 1995 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the first appellate court partly allowed the appeal on the ground of default preferred by the defendant-appellant while maintaining the decree for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises on the grounds of nuisance and sub-letting.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly stated are that a civil suit for eviction of the defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) from the suit shop situated in old sabji mandi behind Johari Bazar, Jaipur, was filed by the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as therespondent): It was alleged in the suit that the suit shop was rented out to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 45/- per month and that it was an old tenancy. The plaintiff filed the said suit for eviction of the appellant on three grounds under Section 13 (1) (a), (d) and (e) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short as "the Act"), i. e. , that the tenant had neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months, that the tenant had created nuisance or had done any act which is inconsistent with the properties for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the premises or which is likely to affect adversely the landlords interest therein and that the tenant had assigned, sublet or otherwise parted with the possession of, whole or any part of the premises without the permission of the landlord. The trial Court framed four issues for the purpose of deciding the suit including the issue of relief and default committed in the payment of rent. The respondent examined four witnesses in his defence including himself while the appellant examined three witnesses including himself in support of their case. The trial Court on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:1. Whether the defendant had not committed any default in payment of rent? 2. Whether the defendant had sub-let the shop in question? 3. Whether the defendant had created nuisance as mentioned in para 3 of the plaint? 4. Relief?the trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties adduced on the record and after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties decreed the suit of the plaintiff on all the four issues in favour of the plaintiff or 25th Oct 1988. The appellant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit shop to the respondent within two months from the date of the decree. Besides he was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1650/- towards arrears of rent and water charges etc. at the rate of Rs. 45/- p. m. and Rs. 5/- p. m. respectively. It was further directed that if any payment has been made by the appellant during the pendency of the suit, the same shall be adjusted towards the decretal amount. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court the appellant preferred first appeal before the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur who transferred the same to the Court of Addl. District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur for disposal in accordance with law.

( 3 ) THE first appellate court reversed the findings of the trial court on the issue of default in payment of rent, while maintained the decree of eviction on the ground of subletting and nuisance. On the question of default in payment of rent it was observed by the first appellate court that the interim rent of the suit shop was fixed at the rate of Rs. 45/- p. m. Since there was a dispute regarding the rate of rent between the parties while the respondent alleged that the rate of rent was Rs. 100/- p. m. , the appellant alleged that it was Rs. 45/- p. m. In order to settle the dispute between the parties the trial court fixed interim rent at the rate of rs. 45/- p. m. and directed the appellant to deposit the interim r