Concurrent findings of fact, even if erroneous, cannot be disturbed in a second appeal. Perversity in findings of fact requires a complete misreading of evidence or should be based only on conjectures and surmises.

JUDGMENT

1. Appellants-Defendants-Tenants (hereinafter referred as "Defendants") have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC, assailing judgment and decree dated 17-8-1996 in Appeal No.9/1996 (16/1995), passed by Additional District Judge, Jhunjhunu dismissing appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 21-4-1995 passed by Civil Judge (Lower Division) Chirawa, in Civil Suit No.70/1981 whereby plaintiff's suit for eviction from tenanted shop and recovery of rent has been decreed.

2. The facts of case are that rented premises is a shop, which was admittedly let out orally by plaintiff way back on 7-7-1973 at the rent of Rs.35/- per month. The tenancy was oral. According to plaintiff shop was let out to defendant No.1, who further sublet it to defendant No.2 in the year 1977. Plaintiff alleged that defendant No.1 stopped to pay rent from June,1976 and committed default in payment of rent. The defendant No.2 was in service at BITS Pilani and the shop remained closed for near about three years. Some material alteration was also alleged in rented shop. Plaintiff issued a legal notice on 2-3-1977 asking the defendant to vacate rented shop and to pay due rent and charges of electricity. Finally plaintiff filed eviction suit invoking provisions of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter 'the Rent Act') on 19-11-1981.

3. Defendant No.1 filed written statement and denied any tenancy with the plaintiff and stated that he was residing in Pilani itself. He also denied for any shop in Jaipur. It was further stated that after leaving the job defendant No.2 obtained the shop in question on rent and started business of cycle parts, repairing, general store, furniture, stationary, and after July 1973 he is doing the business in the shop. He denied the allegation of subletting to defendant No.2. He denied the allegation of material alteration in shop in question. Notice dated 2-3-1977 was wrongly sent to defendant No.1, to which he replied that he was not tenant. In additional pleas, he raised the issue of misjoinder of party.

4. Defendant No.2 filed separate written statement and stated that there was no tenancy with defendant No.1 and he was wrongly impleaded in suit, and the tenancy was with defendant No.2 from 7-7-1973. He denied for any due rent. In additional pleas he stated that the plaintiff wanted to increase rent as Rs.100/-, to which defendant No.2 denied, therefore the false suit was filed. He further stated that rent from 1-6-197 to 31-12-1976 was deposited in court. On disconnection of electricity, the SDM Jhunjhunu vide order dated 31-5-1982 directed for electricity connection in tenanted shop.

5. On basis of pleadings of parties, the trial court framed eight issues. Plaintiff examined four witnesses and exhibited documents. Defendants also examined four witnesses and exhibited documents.

6. Considering evidence of witnesses of both sides and exhibited documents the trial court came to the conclusion that the tenancy between parties is oral and on appreciation of statements of Pw.1 to Pw.4 it stands clear that shop was let out to defendant No.1 on 7-7-1973, at that point of time defendant No.2 was in service at BITS Pilani. Later on after his retirement the defendant No.1 handed over possession of rented shop to defendant No.2. The trial court recorded a finding of fact that defendant No.1 sublet the rented shop to defendant No.2, who is a sub-tenant. Findings in relation to transfer of possession of rented shop by defendant No.1 to defendant No.2 for a consideration without permission of plaintiff landlord have been record. Since defendant No.2 made a specific plea that rented shop was let out by plaintiff to him, therefore, the onus stands shifted upon defendant No.2. Defendants No.1 and 2 both adduced their respective evidence, but remained fail to produce sufficient evidence to prove that the rented shop was let out to defendant No.2 and not defendant No.1. The def