Court. Nevertheless, the Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the Suit in its entirety. Against this decision, the Respondent carried the matter in Appeal. The issues that were raised before the Appellate Court have been articulated in Paragraph 7, amongst others, whether Defendant No.1 is the tenant in the suit premises and whether Defendant No.2 is defaulter in payment of rent as alleged. If the Appellate Court were to hold that the Defendant No.2 is tenant in the suit premises, obviously the answer to Issue No.2 framed by the Appellate Court would become redundant. In that case, the Court would have been obliged to enquire whether the Defendant No.2 being the direct tenant itself was a defaulter-without which decree of eviction could not be passed against Defendant No.2. The Appellate Court while considering the first issue as to whether Defendant No.2 was the tenant in the suit premises has considered all the relevant aspects and recorded a clear finding of fact that the Defendant No.2 failed to prove that she was direct tenant of the Respondent/Plaintiff in respect of the suit premises. The Appellate Court has adverted to the evidence produced by the Petitioner. The Appellate Court has discerned the inconsistent stand taken by the Petitioner/Defendant No.2 at different stages. Inasmuch as in the reply Exhibit 35, she contended that in the beginning, the suit property was taken by her through the Defendant No.1 Munnabai and she used to pay rent to Munnabai, but rent
