GANESHLAL Vs. RANJITLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the defendants in a suit for arrears of rent, which has been decreed by both courts below.

(2.) THE material facts leading up to this appeal may be shortly stated as follows. THE defendants borrowed some money from the plaintiff by means of a mortgage of the suit house. THEreafter they took it on rent from the plaintiff under a rent-note dated Magha Sudi 2 Svt. 2004 (corresponding to the 12th February, 1948) by which the defendants agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 131/ -. It is common ground between the parties that the plaintiff had filed a suit for ejectment against these defendants on the 7th May, 1952, which was dismissed. Shortly after, that is, on the 2nd August, 1952, the defendants filed a suit for fixation of standard rent and it was decided in that suit that the standard rent for the suit property would be Rs. 98/- P. M. with effect from the 2nd August, 1952, being the date on which the suit was filed. THE present suit was filed by the plaintiff on the 12th March, 1954, for recovery of arrears of rent prior to the 2nd August, 1952. THE amount claimed is Rs. 1213/15/- being the rent due for nine months and eight days, and this rent has been obviously claimed at the rate of Rs, 131/- P. M.

(3.) FROM the aforesaid discussion, I am clearly disposed to hold the view that the two suits brought by the plaintiff, the first for ejectment and the second for recovery of arrears of rent were not founded on the same cause of action nor, if I may say so with all respect, the same kind of evidence would be enough for the plaintiff to succeed in either of the two suits. I, therefore, hold that the present suit is not barred by anything contained in O. 2 r. 2 C. P. C. , though I do feel that it should have been sheer common-sense on the part of the plaintiff and his legal advisers to have united his cause of action in the second suit with that in the first suit, and if he had done so, the present litigation would have been well avoided.