The burden of proof for subletting under Rent Control laws and the criteria for establishing subletting were the central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant civil second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been preferred by appellant-defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 10.09.2007 passed in Civil Appeal No. 32/2005 by the District Judge, Baran (Raj.) affirming the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2005 passed in Civil Suit No.89/2004 by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. D.) Baran (Raj.) whereby and whereunder the plaintiff’s suit for eviction has been decreed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the impugned judgments.

3. It appears from the record that in respect of the rented premises measuring 30 X 25 feet comprising one room and tin shaded portion situated at Baran, one eviction suit was filed way back on 23.11.1992 alleging inter alia that the rented premises was taken on rent prior to five years ago from the respondentplaintiff-Society. The premises was alleged to be taken on rent by one Prabhu Lal who later on passed away and her mother Ramnathi Bai (defendant No.1) sublet the rented premises to one Dinesh Chand (defendant No.2). It was pleaded that the rented premises is required bonafidely and reasonably for personal use of plaintiff- Society and therefore, the suit was preferred on the ground of bona fide necessity and subletting under the provisions of Section 13 of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950.

4. Appellant-defendant submitted his written statement and contended that he is not sub-tenant but is adopted son of defendant No.1 and the ground of necessity and subletting were denied.

5. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence of both parties, decided issue Nos.2, 3 and 4 with observation that the tenancy of rented premises is not in dispute and it is proved that the rented premises is required by the plaintiff-Society for its own purposes. The original tenant Prabhu Lal has passed away, his mother Ramnathi Bai has subletted the rented premises to defendant No.2-Dinesh Chand who is in exclusive possesion. The plea of defendant No.2 that he is adopted son of defendant No.1 was not found proved. With such findings, the decree for eviction was passed on the ground of bona fide necessity and subletting vide judgment dated 16.04.2005.

6. Appellant-defendant, by way of first appeal, assailed the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2005. The first appellate court re-considered and re-heard the entire matter as a whole and concurred with fact findings in respect of bona fide necessity and subletting and dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 10.09.2007, affirming the decree for eviction dated 16.04.2005.

7. It appears that though during the course of first appeal, appellant-defendant raised an argument that the respondentplaintiff has issued a notice to auction the suit property, therefore, the necessity alleged by the plaintiff may not be treated as bona fide and reasonable but such argument was not corroborated by any evidence, therefore such arguments do not find his favour.

8. Both courts below have considered the evidence on record as a whole and recorded a fact finding that the rented premises is required bonafidely and reasonably to the respondent-plaintiff Society and is in exclusive possession of the appellant who has been held as sub-tenant. Such fact findings do not suffer from any perversity, infirmity or misreading/non-reading of evidence nor are against settled principle of law.

9. The counsel for appellant could not point out any perversity on the part of courts below in recording fact findings on the issue of bona fide necessity and sub-letting. In absence of any perversity in the fact finding, the same do not give rise to any substantial questions of law. Substantial questions of law are sine- qua-non to exercise the jurisdiction of high court under Section 100 of CPC.

10. In the case of Ram Prasad Rajak Vs. Nand Kumar & Bros and Anr. [(1998) 6 SCC 748] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the issue related to bona fide and personal necessity of rented premises is purely