SETH GULABCHAND Vs. RADHEYSHIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision by the plaintiff Seth Gulab Chand and Gopichand against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Jaipur.

(2.) THE application arises out of a suit for the recovery of Rs. 300/- as damages for use and occupation of the plaintiff's shop inspite of a notice of determining tenancy to the defendant. THE damages for use and occupation were claimed at the rate of Rs. 4/- per day,, taking advantage of a ruling of a single Judge of this Court in the case of Hanuman Bux vs. Dev Dutt (1) (AIR 1952 Raj. 111.), in which it was held that it was open to the landlord after giving notice of termination of tenancy to charge more for use and occupation that the rent which was agreed between the parties before the tenancy was determined. An issue to the following affect was framed in the case and it was issue No. 4: - Whether the court had power to determine the damages on the basis of the rent of neighbouring shops and other evidence. " By the consent of the parties, arguments were heard on this issue in the first instance. Before this issue came up for decision, the ruling of the single Judge quoted above had been overruled by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Hansraj vs. Gappulal (2 ). THE learned lower court after hearing the arguments of the parties decided that it had no power in the present suit to determine damages on the basis of rent of neighbouring shops as that would amount to the fixing of standard rent of the premises in dispute and, therefore, the plaintiffs could not be allowed to produce evidence on that point. Against this order the plaintiffs have come in revision.