1. The instant Civil Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the original tenant-defendant (Asha Ram Sindhi) who died during the pendency of this appeal and his legal representatives have been brought on record, who are presently appellants in this appeal. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 08.05.1992 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Regular Appeal No. 15/1984, whereby the learned appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff-landlord and reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil suit No. 14/80 (1/82).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that plaintiff-respondent had filed a civil suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the deceased defendant-tenant on grounds of default in payment of rent and subletting/parting with possession of the suit shops. It is pleaded in the plaint with regard to ground of subletting.

^^;g fd izfroknh us fdjk;s’kqnk gky ds chp esa ikVhZ’ku yxk dj ,d fgLlk jktdey okWp dEiuh dks lcysV ;k ikVsZMfon its’ku dj fn;k gSA**

3. The deceased defendant-tenant in the written statement denied the allegations regarding subletting by making the following averments:-

^^;g fd okn i= dk uacj 5 drbZ xyr gS vkSj Lohdkj ugha gSA izfroknh us dksbZ ijekusUV ikVhZ’ku nqdku esa ugha yxk;k gS] cfYd QuhZpj dk fQfVax dj j[kk gSA izfroknh us nqdku dk dksbZ fgLlk jktdey okWp dEiuh dks lcysV ugha fd;k vkSj u mDr fgLls ij ls viuk dCtk dHkh gVk;kA

;g fd izfroknh us nqdku dk dksbZ Hkkx dHkh fdlh dks Hkh fdlh izdkj lcysV ugha fd;k vkSj u gh dCtk gh fdlh dks fn;kA nqdku ds ,d Hkkx esa izfroknh viuk lkbZfdyksa dk O;olk; dj jgk gS vkSj ,d Hkkx esa izfroknh ds iq= xksfcUnjke o ukjk;.knkl ?kfM;ksa dh nqdkunkjh jktdey okWp dEiuh ds uke ls lu~ 1960 ls gh dj jgs gSA xksfcUnjke o ukjk;.knkl izfroknh ds iq= gS vkSj rhuksa la;qDr ifjokj ds lnL; gSA**

4. The learned trial court after recording evidence of the parties did not accept the plea of plaintiff-landlord regarding subletting/parting with possession and vide its judgment and decree dated 15/12/1983 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-landlord. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff-landlord filed civil first appeal before the learned lower appellate court, the same was allowed by the learned first appellate Court.

5. Aggrieved by the same the appellant-tenant has filed the present second appeal before this Court.

6. This Court on 12.3.1993 admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law:-

(i) Whether the finding of the learned first appellate court that the appellant had parted with a part of the premises in dispute is not perverse?

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record minutely and carefully.

8. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel Mr. M.M. Ranjan for the appellants that the learned trial Court did not consider the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. The order of rejection of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is perverse. The learned first appellate Court failed to consider the documents which were admissible without proof under Section 274 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. The learned appellate Court did not pass speaking order on the application filed by the defendant and did not apply its mind to the application. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellants that the finding of the first appellate Court on issue No. 3 is perverse on the face of it. While deciding issue No.3, the learned appellate Court did not discuss the evidence of the defendant and without giving any reason for its disagreement, the first appellate court reversed the finding of the learned trial Court. He submitted that in order to prove the ground of subletting two ingredients have to be proved i.e. parting with the possession of pre