Honble GUPTA, J.–Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2). By the impugned decree, the learned lower Appellate Court has decreed the plaintiffs suit for eviction on the ground of subletting, finding that the tenant defendant No. 1 Dwarka Das has sublet the premises (shop) to Khataumal. Regarding partnership it has been found, that the shop was sublet to Khataumal, as it is not shown that thereafter it reverted back to the original tenant, and thereafter partnership was entered into. Be that as it may. The appeal was filed challenging this finding, and contending, that in the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that there has been any subletting.

(3). The decree was passed by the learned lower Appellate Court on 13.8.1999, and the present appeal was filed on 6.10.1999, therein the respondent appeared as caveator on 8.10.1999, on which date it was adjourned with the undertaking of the respondent that he will not execute the decree, and since then the matter is being adjourned.

(4). During pendency of this appeal as above, the learned counsel representing caveator happened to be elevated as Honble Judge of this Court, and therefore, vide order dt. 10.12.2001 notice was ordered

Click Here to Read the rest of this document