1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.3.1992 passed by the 1st Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Tikamgarh in Civil Appeal No. 4-A/91, whereby the judgment and decree dated 12.12.1990 passed by 1st Civil Judge, Class II, Tikamgarh has been reversed and set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs has been dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit against the defendants/ respondents praying therein that their father Moolchand was a tenant of the suit shop owned by Municipality, Tikamgarh and after the death of their father on 13.12.1985, being sons they inherited the tenancy right and by holding over the tenancy right they are tenants of defendant No.2. The plaintiffs further prayed that defendant No. l/respondent No.1 be directed to deliver possession of the suit shop to them.

3. According to the plaint averments the suit shop was taken by Moolchand, who was father of the plaintiffs and there was relationship of landlord and tenant between Moolchand and the Municipality. This relationship is also mentioned and maintained in the record of the Municipality. In the month of April, 1985 defendant No. 1 requested Moolchand to deliver possession of the suit shop for 3-4 months and it was assured by defendant No. 1 that after 3-4 months he would deliver possession to Moolchand. Since Moolchand was an ailing person and on account of illness he was unable to carryon the business properly, eventually on the assurance given by defendant No.1 that he would vacate the suit shop, she delivered the possession of the suit shop on temporary . basis to him. On account of illness Moolchand breathed his last on 13.12.1985, but the defendant No.1 did not deliver the possession of the suit shop either to Moolchand or to the plaintiffs who are the sons of Moolchand. Hence the instant suit has been filed.

4. The defendant No.1 refuted the averments made in the plaintiff and pleaded that he is possessing the suit shop since 1982 as sub-tenant of Moolchand. Neither Moolchand nor the plaintiffs made any demand to deliver possession. Indeed he is depositing rent in the office of the Municipality since 1980. In the special pleas it has also been pleaded that he gave Rs.10,000/- towards Pagdi in the year 1982 to said Moolchand and took the suit shop as sub-tenant. The shop was in dilapidated condition and necessary repairs were carried out by him. The defendant No. 1 requested Moolchand to get the suit shop endorsed in the name of defendant No.1 in the record of Municipality as the tenant of Municipality, but Moolchand despite giving assurance did not act upon and ultimately he passed away. It has been further pleaded that on 20.6.1984 an employee of the Municipality arrived at the suit shop when defendant No.1 was carrying on the business, where he prepared a Panchnama, thereafter Chief Municipal Officer sent notice dated 3.9.1984 to him as well as to Moolchand. On these pleas it has been prayed in the written statement that the suit be dismissed.

5. Defendant No.2 Municipality did not contest the suit and remained ex parte.

6. The trial Court after framing the issues and recording the evidence of the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that Moolchand, who was father of the plaintiffs was the tenant and after his death plaintiffs have become tenants of the Municipality. The defendant No.1 was directed to deliver possession of the suit shop to the plaintiffs within two months.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, defendant No.1 preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court, which has been allowed and the suit has been dismissed. Hence this second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs.

8. This Court on 3.8.1993 admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:

( 1) Whether the findings arrived at by the lower appellate Court are perverse ?

(2)