GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J. - (1.) IN this second appeal, the appellant is challenging the judgment dt. 1.8.2008 passed by the A.D.J. No. 3, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal No. 51/07, whereby, the learned lower appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree dt. 19.4.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Jodhpur City, Jodhpur, by which, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent -plaintiff and passed decree for eviction against the appellant -defendant.
(2.) THE respondent -plaintiff Oswal Singh Sabha preferred suit for eviction against the appellant -defendant from the house situated in Ghoron -ka -Chowk, Jodhpur for two grounds viz., default in payment of rent and non -user of the house. The trial Court framed the following issues : 1 - vk;k izfroknh us ebZ 1998 ds i'pkr~ dk fdjk;k oknh dks vnk ugh dj fdjk;k vnk;xh esa O;frdze fd;k gS ftEes oknh - - - - .........[vernacular ommited text]........... Issues No. 1, 2 and 3 were decided against the defendant and while granting relief, though issue No. 1 with regard to default in payment of rent is decided against the defendant -appellant, but, benefit of first default was granted to him. However, on the basis of the finding upon issues No. 2 and 3, the trial Court passed decree for eviction from the said premises within two months. Further, it is ordered that the plaintiff will be entitled for arrears of rent and will be entitled for mesne profits till the date of getting possession of the premises in question. The said decree was passed by the trial Court on 19.04.2007. Thereafter, the appellate Court affirmed the finding arrived at by the trial Court vide Judgment dated 01.08.2008.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the respondent -plaintiff failed to prove before the trial Court that from which date the appellant -defendant is not using the house in question. It is also argued that without any specific date and proving before the Court that for last six months the tenant is not using the property no decree can be passed, therefore, both the Courts below have committed error while not considering this aspect of the matter that no specific date from which the appellant -defendant is not using the premises is given. Therefore, the finding arrived at with regard to issue No. 2 deserves to be quashed because the finding is perverse and contrary to settled principle of law.;