MILAP CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the defen-dant against the judgment & decree of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur dated December 8, 1988 by which he has dismissed the appeal & confirmed the judgment of the Munsif, Jodhpur City dated July 13,1987, decreeing the suit for recovery of mesne profits at the rate of Rs 110/- & ejectment. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.
(2.) THE tenement No. 1 of Madanlal Nandkishore building situated at 1st'a'road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur was let out to the defendant by the plaintiff on monthly rent of Rs. 110/-on March 1, 1982. THE defendant paid rent of March, 1982 only and did not pay any rent subsequently despite several demands and registered notice. He has also sublet a portion of the demised premises to an old lady in November, 1983 on monthly rent of Rs. 75/ -. Suit for ejectment was filed on these two grounds. THE defendant admitted in his written statement that the demised premises was let out to him on monthly rent of Rs. llo/- and the remaining allegations of the plaint were denied. THE amount of rent & interest was determined by order dated 27-4-85. THE defendant defaulted inpayment of rent of the subsequent months. Accordingly, his defence was struck off vide order-sheet dated 15 12-86. THE trial court framed issues and recorded the evidence of the parties. After hearing them, it held that the defendant had committed default in payment of rent & has also sub-let the demised premises to an old lady. Accordingly, it decreed the suit as said above. Appeal No 29/87 was preferred against this judgment. It was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur by bis order dated December 8, 1988. Mr. M. L. Kalla and Mr. M. K. Trivedi put their appearance on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent suo-moto. They seriously opposed the admission of the second appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned lower appellate court has erred to hold that the defendant did not remit Rs. 500/- by money order to the plaintiff. He further contended that it is well proved from the evidence on record that the defendant had remitted Rs 500/-towards rent to the plaintiff by money order from Jaipur and on taking into consideration this amount, no default in payment of rent is found. He also contended that the learned lower courts have seriously erred in holding that the demised premises has been sub-let to an old lady by the defendant despite the fact that the name of the old lady and the particulars of the portion of the demised premises sub-let, have not been mentioned in the plaint. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents duly supported the judgments under appeal. They contended that the findings regarding the default in payment of rent and sub-letting are findings of facts and no question of law what to say of substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. There appears to be a great force in the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent. The defendant's case is that he duly paid the rent to the plaintiff and did not obtain any receipt from him being a close friend. No reliance can be placed on his testimony, particularly when he admits that he duly obtained the receipt of the rent of the first month, i. e. , March, 1982. The defendant's further case is that he remitted Rs. 500/-from Jaipur towards rent. The plaintiff has denied to have received the money order of Rs. 500/ -. The trial court has held that this money order was received by the plamtiff. On the contrary, the first appellate court has held that the defendant has failed to prove that it was received by the plaintiff. It is admitted by the defendant in his cross-examination that this money order was neither addressed to the residence nor to any one of the two offices of the plaintiff but it was sent C/o. Marudh ira Fabrics, Mahaveer Market, Jodhpur, No suggestion even was put in the cross-examination of the plaintiff Nandkishore PW 1 that he had his sitting at M/s. Marudhara Fabrics Mahaveer Market, Jodhpur. In such state of evidence, the learned first appellate court rightly held that it is not proved that Rs. 500/- were remitted by the defendant to the plaintiff by money order Ex A/l. It may also be mentioned here that signature appearing on the money order coupon Ex. A/1 of the recipient, does not tally with the plaintiff's signatures appearing on the plaint and Vakalatnama. It is not disputed that if this amount of Rs. 500/- is not taken into consideration, the defendant is defaulter within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act.
(3.) BOTH the lower courts have rightly held that the demised premises has been sub-let by the defendant to an old lady. There is a note in the statement of the plaintiff Nandkishore PW 1. It is clearly mentioned in this note that the learned counsel for the defendant stated that the defendant resides at Bombay. This greatly supports the plaintiff's case of sub-letting. There is a great force in the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent that no substantial question of law arises in the second appeal. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with costs. . ;