1. - The instant second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 20.2.1993 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, No. 1, Ajmer whereby he upheld the judgment and decree dated 18.8.1983 passed by the learned Munsiff Magistrate , Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 229/1976 (107/1978) whereby the decree of eviction and arrears of rent was passed by the learned Munsiff against the tenant appellants.

2. The substantial questions of law formulated at the time of admission of this appeal are as under:

(i) Whether the suit filed on 6.7.1976 on the ground of non-payment of rent was not pre-mature?

(ii) Whether in view of the facts found by the Courts below, it can be legally said that the tenant had sub-let the premises in dispute or had parted with the possession thereof? and

(iii) Whether in view of the fact that Dr. Poonam Chand son of one of the plaintiffs having been employed in the Government service, the decree-for eviction on the ground of personal requirement can be sustained?

3. The brief facts giving rise to this second appeal are that the plaintiffs Mr. Hem Chand Ranka and Mr. Jai Chand Ranka let out a shop bearing No. AMC-349NI1 situated at Dargah Bazar, Ajmer on (Besakh Badi Samvat 2018) equivalent to 1961 to Ayal Das and Vadhu Mal son of Asan Das on a monthly rent of Rs. 35/- for running cloths business therein. Subsequently, on account of death of Ayal Das at the request of Vadhu Mal the name of Kanhaiya Lal son of Vadhu Mal was substituted in the tenancy and the tenancy was changed in the name of M/s. Vadhu Mal Kanhaiya Lal on monthly rent of Rs. 45/- w.e.f. (Miti Besakh Badi Samvat 2031) corresponding to April 7, 1974. These averments are made in paragraph 1 and 2 in the plaint.

4. The plaintiffs claimed eviction on two grounds; firstly, on the personal bona fide necessity as according to the plaintiffs Mr. Poonam Chand Ranka son of Mr. Hem Chand Ranka had passed his MBBS Examination and the plaintiffs wanted him to start his own dispensary and chemist shop therefore, the shop in question was required for their personal use. Another ground taken was that of default in payment of rent as according to the plaintiff the defendant No. 1 to 3 had paid the rent of the suit property in question only up to 18.12.1975 and had failed to pay anything thereafter in spite of demands and a sum of Rs. 270/- for rent and mesne profit up to 12.6.1976 had fallen due and therefore, according to the plaintiff defendant No. 1 to 3 have committed default of three months in making the payment of rent and liable to be evicted from the suit premises only on these two grounds.

5. The defendants contested the suit and the suit was decreed as aforesaid by both the courts below.

6. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were heard at length at bar.

7. Mr. B.L. Mandhana, the learned counsel for the defendant tenant argued on two points; one that the suit was premature and bar of Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (herein after referred to as the Act') of 1950 and second that the personal bona fide necessity of the plaintiffs had completely eclipsed in view of son of the plaintiff No. 1 Dr. Poonam Chand Ranka having joined Government service as not available to occupy the said property in question and therefore, the eviction on that count was uncalled for. Lastly, he also contested on the ground of default. Learned counsel for the appellants also pointed out that an application under 0. 41 Rule 27 CPC was filed by the tenant in this Court for bringing additional evidence on record in the form of Dr. Poonam Chand Ranka having joined the Government service with reference to contention No. 2 as aforesaid. He also submitted that in view of this, if the said application is allowed the impugned order also deserves to be set aside and the matter also deserves to be remanded back to the trial court for deciding the issue of personal bona fide necessity again.

8. A