Tatia, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties Perused the judgment and decree dated 7th Nov. 1992 passed by the trial court as well as the record.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants challenged the finding recorded by the trial court and submitted that the suit was decree ex-parte even when the evidence which is on record is hot sufficient for passing decree of eviction against the appellants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the present suit for eviction was filed on the ground of default in payment of ren by the defendant-tenant alongwith other grounds of sub- letting, denial of title and material alteration in the premises. According to learned counsel for the appellants the only witness appeared in support of the suit of the plaintiff is the plaintiff himself and so far as the evidence of the plaintiff with respect to the sub-letting and parting with the possession of the property is concerned, is vague and decree cannot be passed.
4. 1 have perused the statement of the plaintiff wherein plaintiff, very specifically stated that defendant No. 1 (tenant) stopped his work in the premises and premises has been subletted to the defendant No. 3 without the consent of the plaintiff on the rent of Rs. 1,000/- per month. According to learned counsel for the appellants, when plaintiff himself admitted that defendant No. 3 is holding the Benami licence and he is Government doctor, this itself is sufficient ground to hold that plea of sub-letting is false, as there cannot be a Benami licence and no one can do the business of the nature, as alleged by the plaintiff without there being a valid licence. When plaintiff admitted that there is a Benami licence then the burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove that the tenant was not in occupation and plea of Benami licence cannot be accepted.
5. I am unable to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. The plaintiff has unequivocally stated that defendant No. 3 was doing his working in the disputed premises without the consent and permission of the plaintiff in the sub-letted premises on the rent of Rs. 1000/-. This statement of the plaintiff is uncontroverted, as there is no cross- examination though because of the fact that proceedings were ex- parte against the defendant and the application for seating aside ex-parte decree was also rejected by the trial court and appeal against the trial court's order has been dismissed by this court today in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 27/93. The fact of handing over possession and taking rent from sub-letee by the defendant is sufficient evidence to prove the fact of sub-letting. When there is no rebuttal evidence and no cross-examination, there is no reason to disbelieve the oral statement of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently further submitted that the plaintiff should have produced more evidence to prove the fact and his statement, according to learned counsel for the appellant, is nothing but a vague allegation of a fact. I am unable to accept this submission also in view of the fact that there is nothing vague in the statement. Here in this case, when no written statement was filed, the plaintiff thought it proper to produce the evidence, which he could have produced. Full opportunity was available to the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff and once the defendant failed to cross-examine the plaintiff, the plaintiff may suppose that defendant does not want to deny the statement of the plaintiff, which are on oath before the trial court and he may be swayed in not producing more evidence by the conducted the defendant on the point which has not been denied by filing written statement or by cross- examination. The plaintiff in his plaint specifically mentioned that defendant No. 1 (tenant) has subletted and parted with possession of the property to the defendant No. 3 and defendant No. 1 is receiving the rent of Rs. 1,000/- per month from the defendant No. 3. In pleading, facts are pleaded. There maybe various type of evidence, which may be oral, documentary or in the form of admission of any of the party and when there is an oral evidence, then the oral evidence itself may be relied upon in the suit. The trial court when relied upon the evidence of the plaintiff, the trial court has committed no illegality nor there is any reason to hold that the statement of plaintiff is unreliable or does not prove the fact by oral, uncontroverted and unrebutted statement.
6. A person if violates any law while doing business in the premises, this does not mean that a plea of violation of law by itself make the plea unbelieable. If any licence was needed to run the shop by the defendant No. 3 or defendant No. 1 and if the business was done by the defendant No. 3 on the basis of Benami licence then doing of business in violation of the term of the licence or without licence may be an offence or liable for the consequences as provided in absence of licence but this does not mean that one cannot violate the term of licence if it is proved as a matter of fact. Here in this case, whether there was any Benami license of not has no relevancy at all for sub-letting the premises which is done by handing over on the rent the premises and taking rent from the sub-lettee. Therefore, the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant has no force.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant also vehemently submitted that the removal of roof or damages to roof or breaking the roof itself cannot be a material alteration of the property. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there may be various reasons and circumstances in which the roof may be removed and repaired for beneficial enjoyment of the property.
8. Here in this case, there is a specific evidence of the plaintiff that defendant broken the roof of the shop and altered the shape of the shop. According to specific statement of the plaintiff it is complete material alteration. This statement also clearly proves removal of roof and alteration in the shape of the shop. Here in this case, it was not the case of even the defendant that roof was required to be repaired by removing it or there was some reason to carry out some work in which the roof of the shop broke down. There is no evidence that roof has been repaired. Therefore, the evidence which was available before the trial-court and before this court are only to the effect that roof was damaged, broken down and the shape of the shop was altered, therefore, the material alteration has also been proved by the tenant-defendant.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant also challenged, the finding of the trial court relied on the point of denial of title. There is a specific statement by the plaintiff that when plaintiff demanded rent from the defendant No. 1 he refused to recognize the plaintiff as owner of the property. For denial of title by the tenant, as specific form of denial is required and uncontroverted and unrebutted statement of the plaintiff can be accepted.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the rent has not been determined by the trial court and even in ex-parte cases the trial court should have determined the rent. When the suit has been decreed on the ground of sub-letting and material alteration etc., then even if there was some procedure flow, if any, without effecting the merits of the finding recorded on other issue then decree passed by the trial court cannot be reversed.
11. Since the finding on other points have been upheld, therefore, I am leaving apart the point whether the rent is required to be determined in ex-parte cases as that issue will become not of very much importance.
12. No other points has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant.
13. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Hence, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.