1. This second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 4.7.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Dholpur in Civil Appeal No. 4/2013 confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.1.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dholpur, in Civil Suit No. 12/2009.

2. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that plaintiff respondent No.1 filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent on the ground that the disputed shop was given on rent to defendant respondent No. 2. On 15.9.2000, the plaintiff respondent came to know that the shop has been rented to appellant without his permission. The appellant then informed that he is the owner of the shop, hence on the ground of default of payment of rent and subletting, the suit for eviction has been filed. In written statement respondent No.2 has pleaded that shop in dispute was taken on rent from Buchi Ram and after the death of Buchi Ram, the shop was purchased from his daughter Harpyari by registered sale deed and thereafter suit property has been sold to Rajeshwari Devi, wife of appellant. Appellant has also pleaded that he is the owner of the property. The court below has decreed the suit on the ground of sub-letting and appeal has also been dismissed, hence this second appeal.

3. The contention of the appellant is that both the courts below have erred in deciding issue No.4 against the appellant as appellant is admittedly not tenant in the disputed property. His wife has purchased the shop from respondent No.2 and he is having the possession of the property as owner. The property has been let out on consideration has not been proved. The admission of the tenant-in-chief cannot be used against him after the sale dated 15.4.2000 on the strength of which the wife of the present appellant has become owner of the suit property. Partition between Gavrinandan and Buchi Ram has not been proved, hence the appellant has independent right from tenant-in-chief and he cannot be evicted from the suit property.Per contra, the contention of the respondent plaintiff is that tenant-in-chief has not preferred any appeal hence appeal by sub-tenant is not maintainable. Suit property has been purchased by Buchi Ram and Gavrinandan. Thereafter by way of family settlement in 1966, the property came in the share of Gavarinandan and vide agreement dated 7.5.1973, it has been rented to father of respondent No.2 Sripati. Harpyari was not having any right to sell the property. Buchi Ram in his statement, Ex.31 has specifically admitted the fact that the property belongs to plaintiff respondent. The tenant-in-chief Sripati has also served a notice on plaintiff respondent, Ex.29 which clearly proved the relationship of land lord and tenant between the parties. Any sale deed executed against the rights of the plaintiff-respondent is ab initio void and there is no need to pray for the cancellation of the sale deed. Ex.2, rent receipt is an admitted document by respondent No.2 and other rent receipts have also been proved and rightly relied upon by the courts below. Relationship of land lord and tenant between the parties is a finding of fact and could not be interfered in this second appeal. The alleged sale deed has not been even exhibited before the court below. The appellant is in shoe of the tenant-in-chief and bound by his admission which has been made by the predecessor-in-title and there is no privity of contract between the land lord and the present appellant, hence the appeal is not maintainable.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments and decree under challenge as well as the original record of the case.

5. The suit has been filed on the contention that property was rented out to respondent No.2 who has assigned the possession to the present appellant. Issue No.1 has specifically been framed as regards to the relationship of land lord and tenant between respondent No.1 and 2 and it has been answered in affirmative by b