P M PARMAR Vs. AMBABEN HARGOVINDDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this group of Civil Revision Applications, the respondent is the judgment-creditor and petitioners are the judgment-debtors (defendants). It appears that the respondent-plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 461 of 1988 against Manubhai Dahyabhai Parmar (since deceased) now represented by legal heirs and representatives, who are the petitioners. The suit was filed to recover possession of the suit premises for non-payment of rent commencing from 9-3-1987 at the rate of Rs. 29/- per month till the date of the suit and for further relief of payment of rent or mense profit at the rate of Rs. 29/- till the possession of the suit premises is handed over to the plaintiff. In such suit, the heirs and legal representatives of the original defendant appeared and contended that the rent at the rate of Rs. 29/- per month was excessive and the standard rent was Rs. 15/- only. It appears at the hearing of the suit, i.e., on 17th March 1993, before Civil Judge, S. D., a compromise pursis was filed at Exhibit-39, which inter alia directed that the projected shed beyond 6 feet in the western direction in the land of the plaintiff was to be removed by the defendant. Secondly, it was agreed between the parties that monthly standard rent of the room was Rs. 39/- and standard rent was accordingly decided and it was directed that defendant shall pay the standard rent every month at the rate of Rs. 39/-. The third condition stipulated that all arrears of rent then due were to be paid by the defendant at a time on or before 15th May 1993 and if the defendant fails to pay the rent, it was directed that the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover possession of the suit room by treating the said consent decree as decree for possession. The fourth condition stipulated that in case the defendant would pay up the rent within the time stipulated in the consent terms or by 31st March 1993, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to recover possession of the suit premises and the defendant shall thereafter pay rent every month at the aforesaid rate of Rs. 39 per month.

(2.) In Civil Revision Application No. 308 of 1994, the very landlord sued to recover possession of the suit room, inter alia on the ground that rent was due and payable at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month from 30th November 1984, i.e. for a period of 23 months and that the defendant was liable to pay the same. He also claimed mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month from the defendant till realization of possession. The defendent- original tenant Fogatbhai Jivabhai Parmar, expired and was represented by his heirs and legal representatives, who are the petitioners before this Court. They appeared before the trial Court and resisted the suit by contending that the standard rent of the suit room at the rate of Rs. 30/- was excessive and that standard rent of the suit room as per Municipal Record was only Rs. 15/-. It appears that when the suit was posted for final hearing before the Fourth Jt. Civil Judge (JD), a compromise purs is was filed at Exhibit-31 and it inter alia directed the defendant to remove projected portion beyond 6 feet from the rented room in the western portion of the land of the plaintiff. It was also stipulated that parties have agreed that the rent of Rs. 40/- per month would be the standard rent and the defendants-tenants were directed to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 40/- every month, that being the standard rent. It was also directed that mesne profit due on the date of the suit shall be paid all at a time on or before 15th of May 1993, by the defendant and in case the defendant would fail to pay such rent, the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the suit shop by treating the said consent terms as a decree for possession. It was further stipulated that if defendant would pay up the rent and mense profit by 31st May 1993, at the aforesaid rate, plaintiff was not entitled to recover possession of the suit shop.

(3.) It appears that the very respondent- plaintiff also instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 462 of 1988 against the present petitioner to recover possession of the suit room on the ground that he was in arrears of payment of rent. He inter alia prayed that the rent of the suit premises at the rate of Rs. 45/- per month was due and payable by the tenant from 1-3-1987 and that upto 30th November 1988, total amount of Rs. 945/- was due and payable. He further prayed that mense profit at the rate of Rs. 45/- per month till the date of realisation of possession of the suit room should also be awarded to him. The defendant-tenant appeared in the suit and contested the standard rent at the rate of Rs. 45/- per month was excessive and claimed that the standard rent was much less. This suit was also compromised before 5th Jt. Civil Judge, S. D. on 22nd February 1993, by a compromise Purs is at Exhibit-62 and as per such compromise, identical directions as regards projection beyond 5 feet from the room of defendant in the western portion were issued. It was further agreed between the parties that monthly rent of the suit premises at the rate of Rs. 55/- per month was fixed as standard rent and the defendant was to pay the standard rent at that rate. It was further agreed that arrears of rent then due and payable by the tenant were to be paid by the tenant at a time on or before 23rd of April 1993. In case, the tenant would fail to pay up the rent by the stipulated time, the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the suit room by treating the consent decree as a decree for possession. It was also agreed that in case the defendant would pay up the rent then due as well as subsequent rent by 31st April 1993, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover possession of the suit room from the defendant.