J.B. Pardiwala, J.

This Second Appeal under Section100 of the CPC is at the instance of the original defendant - tenant and is directed against the judgment and order dated 30/12/2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jamnagar, in Regular Civil Appeal No.51 of 2013 arising from the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge allowing the Regular Civil Suit No.85 of 2007 filed by the respondent herein - original plaintiff - l landlord for recovery of possession of the rented premises as well as arrears towards the rent.

2. It appears from the materials on record that the respondent herein - original plaintiff is the owner of the suit property, which is a shop situated in Jamnagar. The said shop was taken on rent by the appellant herein. The rent fixed was at Rs. 175/per month. The agreement between the parties is of the year 1987. As the appellant herein stopped paying the rent and the amount of Rs. 7,525/was due and payable towards the arrears of rent of last six months, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy by issuing a statutory notice Exh.19 dated 21/11/2006. Despite service of notice, the tenant failed to make the payment. The plaintiff thereafter proceeded to file a Regular Civil Suit No.85 of 2007 in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar for possession of the shop as well as arrears of rent.

3. The appellant herein appeared before the Civil Court and filed his written statement. The appellant opposed the suit filed by the plaintiff substantially on the ground of nonjoinder of parties. According to appellant, he is not the sole tenant. His brothers are also cotenants along with him. As the brothers were not joined in the suit, the appellant herein prayed that the suit be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. The appellant also raised issue with regard to the legality and validity of the statutory notice Exh.19 issued by the plaintiff.

4. The trial Court framed the following issues vide Exh.13.

(1) What should be the standard rent and permitted increases if any for the suit premises?

(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the rent is due as claimed in the suit?

(3) If so does the defendant prove that he was and is ready and willing to pay rent?

(4) Whether the suit notice is legal & valid?

(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get possession?

(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled mesne profit?

(7) What order and decree?

5. The issues framed by the trial Court referred to above came to be answered as under:

(1) In the negative.

(2) In the affirmative.

(3) In the negative.

(4) In the affirmative.

(5) In the affirmative.

(6) partly affirmative.

(7) as per final order.

6. The trial Court, ultimately, allowed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The operative part of the judgment and order reads as under:

: ORDER :

(1) The suit of the plaintiff is allowed.

(2) It is ordered that the defendant shall pay suit amount of Rs. 7525/(seven thousand five hundred twenty five only) from the date of filing the suit till the recovery of amount with six percent annual interest and the defendant shall handover vacant possession of place mentioned in tip of Mark 'A' to the plaintiff and the defendant shall pay outstanding accrued rent at the rate of Rs. 175/per month to the plaintiff from 1/2/2007 till the vacant possession of the place is handed over.

(3) The defendant shall bear the cost incurred by the plaintiff for this suit and the defendant shall bear his own cost.

(4) Decree be drawn as per the order.

7. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of eviction, the appellant herein - original defendant preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.51 of 2013 in the District Court at Jamnagar. The first appellate Court upon reappreciation of the evidence on record affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

8. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the first appellate Court, the appellant - original defendant is here before this Court with t