MOHAN KUMAR Vs. NAND KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.