USMAN Vs. SITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a landlord-tenant marathon. It has a chequared history. Defendants are the revision-petitioners before me. Landlords are plaintiff-non-petitioners. Initially the plaintiffs brought Civil Original Suit No. 60/71 before the trial court for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. The tenancy was not in dispute. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit shop had been let-out at Rs. 9/-p. m. They claimed that tenancy had been determined in accordance with a proper notice. The tenant-defendants denied that shop had been let-out at Rs. 9/-p. m. They claimed that no notice for determination of tenancy had been served. They claimed that no notice for determination of tenancy had been served. They pleaded that the rent was excessive and standard rent was liable to be fixed at Rs. 3/ p. m. The trial court found that the shop had been let-out on 11. 2. 43 at a rental Rs. 3/-p. m. It, however, found that notice for determination of tenancy had not been served. Upon these premises, the trial court dismissed the suit regarding ejectment but fixed the standard rent at Rs. 3/- p. m. with effect from 5. 7. 72.

(2.) AN appeal was filed by the plaintiffs before the learned District Judge, Jodhpur against the dismissal of the suit regarding ejectment. There was no appeal against fixation of standard rent. This appeal against fixation of standard rent. This appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 19. 3. 75, the appeal being Civil First Appeal No. 135/74.

(3.) THE plaintiff-non-petitioners went in appeal against this judgment and decree. THE appeal was decided by the learned District Judge on 24. 5. 88, whereby it was observed that the compromise arrived at between the parties, which was reccrded by this court was valid and lawful and, therefore, the basic rent would be Rs. 9/ p. m. and as such the rent was liable to be fixed at Rs. 22. 50. Upon such premises it accepted the appeal and decreed the plaintiffs' suit fixing the standard rent at Rs. 22. 50 with effect from 4. 7. 77. It held plaintiff-petitioners entitled to recover rent at the aforesaid rate. Aggrieved, defendants which were respondents before the court below have come in revision.