Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 06.04.2013 passed by Additional District -Judge, Jodhpur, whereby, the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bilara has been upheld. The facts in brief may be noticed thus: the plaintiff -respondent filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and possession of the house, inter alia, with the averments that a house of the ownership of the plaintiff is situated at Bilara in Chawanda Colony, which was let out to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs. 3,100/ - on 06.09.2006 for which a rent -note was executed; the tenancy was for 11 months; the defendant did not pay the rent as per the rent -note and, therefore, a legal notice was served through registered post and UPC on 21.05.2007 terminating the tenancy. The defendant avoided notice; whereafter, the plaintiff published the notice in 'Dainik Bhaskar' newspaper on 08.06.2007 and the service of the notice on the defendant was sufficient. It was prayed that a decree for arrears of rent and possession be passed against the defendant.
(2.) A written statement was filed by the appellant -defendant, wherein the ownership and possession of the suit property was claimed, landlord -tenant relationship between the parties was denied, it was alleged that the rent -note was got signed on account of misrepresentation; the receipt of notice was denied. The trial court framed as many as ten issues. On behalf of the plaintiff, three witnesses were examined and on behalf of the defendant, the defendant himself was examined. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the rent -note was executed by the defendant; the tenancy was legally terminated; the plaintiff was entitled to arrears of rent alongwith interest; the plaintiff was entitled to injunction against the defendant from demolishing the house and transferring the same; the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property; it cannot be said that the sale -deed and the rentnote was got executed fraudulently; the trial court had pecuniary jurisdiction; the rent tribunal had no jurisdiction and defendant was not entitled to any special cost and, consequently, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved, first appeal was filed by the appellant, wherein the first appellate court after hearing the parties, upheld the findings recorded by the trial court and upheld the decree passed by the trial court.;