JUDGMENT :

Pratap Krishna Lohra, J.

1. Appellant-defendant has preferred this second appeal to challenge judgment dated 20th of September, 2016, passed by Addl. District Judge No. 1, Bikaner (for short, 'learned lower appellate Court'). The learned lower appellate Court, by its judgment affirmed the judgment and decree for eviction dated 18th of May, 2007, passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Bikaner (for short, 'learned trial Court').

2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to this appeal, are that at the threshold one Suraj Narayan filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against appellant before learned trial Court. In the suit, essentially, the landlord pleaded the grounds default in payment of rent, reasonable and bona fide necessity, material alteration and denial of title by the appellant. It is also pleaded in the plaint that despite determination of tenancy by a valid notice, appellant tenant has not vacated the premises. By pleading all these grounds the landlord craved for passing a decree for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the appellant-tenant.

3. The suit is contested by appellant by filing written statement, while refuting all the averments made in the plaint. The appellant took shelter of an oral agreement-to-sale with the earlier landlord in respect of rented premises and also pleaded for his preferential right in the suit property. Appellant, in the written statement, also refused to acknowledge plaintiff Suraj Narayan as his landlord for countering the ground of default in payment of rent. An objection about maintainability of suit on the anvil of Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was also incorporated in the return.

4. On behalf of landlord, rejoinder was filed and the averments made in the plaint are reiterated. The objections raised by the appellant in the written statement are also countered by the landlord in the additional pleadings. Factum of notice given to appellant for determination of tenancy and its non-acknowledgment by the appellant-tenant is also mentioned in the rejoinder by the landlord for proving his status as such.

5. On the basis of pleadings of rival parties, learned trial Court initially settled eight issues for determination and later on framed two more issues as Issue No. 8-A and 8-B respectively. For substantiating his case, landlord Suraj Narayan himself appeared in the witness-box and also examined one witness Khushal Singh. Besides oral evidence, four documents were also produced by the landlord, which were exhibited. Per contra, on behalf of appellant-defendant, he himself appeared in the witness-box and testified on oath, however, no documentary evidence was tendered.

6. Upon conclusion of evidence of rival parties, the learned trial Court proceeded to decide the issues settled. Issues No. 1 & 2 are decided by the learned trial Court simultaneously. As burden of proving the same was on plaintiff-landlord, the learned trial Court upon appreciation of evidence recorded its definite finding favouring cause of the landlord and consequently decided both these issues in his favour and against the appellant. Likewise, Issues No. 3 & 4 are also decided in favour of landlord. Switching on to Issues No. 5 & 6, the learned trial Court decided Issue No. 5 in favour of plaintiff-landlord and Issue No. 6 against him. Issue No. 7, pertaining to denial of title, was also decided in favour of plaintiff-landlord. Last issue, i.e., Issue No. 8, was settled on the basis of pleadings of appellant-defendant and, therefore, burden to prove the same was also casted on him. The learned trial Court made sincere endeavour to discuss evidence threadbare for adjudicating the said issue.

7. After examining the entire evidence meticulously, learned trial Court recorded its definite finding that status of appellant-defendant in the disputed premises is that of a tenant and thereby rejected his plea that he is co-owner of the property. The additional Iss