1. - The instant civil second appeal has been preferred against the judgment & decree dated 15/09/1994 passed by the court of District Judge, Jhunjhunu by which the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed and the judgment & decree dated 17/12/1987 passed by the court of Additional Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for eviction, has been upheld.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in brief are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for eviction on the ground of non-user of the rented premises. The court below has held that ground could not be proved by the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant there against has also been dismissed. Hence, this second appeal.

3. This appeal has been admitted on 25/03/1996 on the following substantial question of law:-

"That the learned courts below have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant on the basis of the pleader-commissioner's report which is subsequent to the finding of the suit whereas in view of Section 13(1)(j) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, the relevant question should have been as to whether the premises had not been used without reasonable cause for a continuous period of six months immediately preceeding date of the suit. It has been submitted that the judgments of the courts below suffer from non-consideration of the evidence on this question prior to the institution of the suit.

4. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant and perused the impugned judgments & decree as well as original records of the case.

5. Contention of the appellant is that court below has derailed from the true path when Commissioner Report dated 23/03/1986 has been considered as Section 13(1)(j) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (shall hereinafter be referred as the "Act of 1950") clearly speaks that the premises have not been used without reasonable cause for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the suit and hence, the facts brought on record after filing of the suit are irrelevant. Court below has not considered evidence of the plaintiff. Initially, burden of proving ground of eviction was on plaintiff, which she has discharged but defendants had not proved anything that they are continuously running the business there. No documentary evidence was submitted. Electric bills as well as purchase & sale vouchers have not been submitted and to support the contention, the person working as servant or the persons from whom business deals have been made has not been examined and it is a case of non-consideration of the evidence. Hence, the suit ought to have been decreed.

6. Per contra, contention of the defendant respondents was that the courts below have considered the evidence of the plaintiff and when she could not discharge the initial burden and could not prove anything as regards to non-user of the property, the weakness of the defendants will not strengthen the case of the plaintiff and there is no infirmity in the impugned judgments & decree.

7. Perusal of the impugned judgments & decree goes to show that that evidence of the plaintiff has been considered by the courts below at length and none of the witnesses has stated that defendants are not working in the property from last six months immediately preceeding the date of filing of the suit. Plaintiff herself has admitted that they open the shop occasionally and other witnesses have also stated that they have seen the defendants working in the premises. Hence, both the courts below were concurrent in the findings that plaintiff could not prove the fact that from last six months immediately preceeding the date of filing of the suit, premises have not been used. Hence, if the court below has not considered the evidence of the defendants, the finding could not be said to be perverse as the plaintiff has to first prove her contention,