Deepak Maheshwari, J.

This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 06.05.2015 passed by Addl. District Judge, Sujangarh in appeal decree No.01/2015 whereby the learned first appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent defendant and reversed the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2014 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) Sujangarh in Civil Original Suit No.531/2014 (117/2012) whereby the decree of eviction has been passed against the respondent/defendant and it was held that the appellant/plaintiff is entitled for mesne profit @ Rs.3000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till getting the possession of the tenanted property.

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the plaintiff - Kishore Kumar filed a suit for eviction against the defendant/respondent inter alia alleging that he is in possession of a residential house situated at Naya Bazar and the plaintiff has rented out one room and kitchen constructed on the first floor of the said premises to defendant @ Rs.700/- per month. The defendant/respondent has executed an agreement and declaration on 20.09.2011 to the effect that he will vacate the premises in question on or before 31.03.2012 and hand over the possession to the plaintiff/appellant but after expiry of the said period, the defendant/respondent has not vacated the said premises. Thus, the plaintiff/ appellant has sent a notice through registered post to the defendant/respondent on 11.10.2012 for termination of tenancy and for paying the arrears of rent. The said notice was duly replied by the defendant/respondent vide reply dated 15.10.2012. It was further alleged in the suit that the defendant/respondent neither vacated the tenanted premises nor paid the arrears of rent. The plaintiff has not claimed any relief with regard to recovery of arrears of rent but while showing the defendant appellant as encroacher and in use and occupation of the premises in question claimed compensation @ Rs.3000/- per month.

3. The defendant/respondent filed his written statement and denied the contentions raised by the plaintiff/appellant in the suit. In reply to para No.1 of the suit, the defendant/respondent has admitted that one room and one kitchen is constructed on the first floor of the suit premises but he has denied other facts of para No.1 for want of knowledge.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed as many as five issues as mentioned below at page No.2 of the judgment passed by first appellate Court :-

1- vk;k okn i= dh en la[;k ,d esa vafdr vklsikls ds oknxr ifjlj dk oknh Lokeh gS ,oa izfroknh fdjk;snkj gksdj oknh us izfroknh dh fdjk;snkjh fnukad 11-10-2012 dks uksfVl Hkstdj lekIr dj nh\

2- vk;k oknh] izfroknh ls oknxzLr ifjlj dk fnukad 28-10-2012 ls 3000 :i;s ekfld gtkZuk crkSj ;wt ,.M vkWD;wis'ku Lo:i izkIr djus dk gdnkj gS\-------oknh

3- vk;k izfroknh] oknh dk fdjk;snkj ugha gS\ izfroknh dk fdjk;snkj u gksus ls oknh dks oknk/kkj izkIr ugha gS\

4- vk;k oknh dk okn i;kZIr U;k;'kqYd ij ,oa vUnj fe;kn ugha gksus ds dkj.k pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\

5- vuqrks"k\

5. During trial, the plaintiff/appellant was examined as PW-1 and got seven documents exhibited. Defendant/respondent was examined as DW/1 and produced his wife Smt. Daya as DW/2 in his evidence and got exhibited one document i.e. certified copy of the sale deed as Ex.A/1.

6. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties and considering the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2014 in favour of the plaintiff appellant whereby issues No.1, 2 and 5 were decided in favour of the plaintiff and issues No.3 and 4 were decided against the defendant. Accordingly, it was held that the appellant plaintiff is entitled to get the vacant possession of the suit premises as also for mesne profit @ Rs.3000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till getting the possession