GAYA PARSHAD Vs. BASDEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil second appeal by Gaya Parshad one of the defendants in suit No. 38 of 1951, filed for the recovery of rent by Basdeo and two others against him and Baijnath respondent in the court of the Civil Judge, Sikar, on the 2-3-1951. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had taken one shop situated in the town of Fatehpur on rent from them on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-, under the rent note dated the 12-6-1948, and that, on the non-payment of the rent by the defendants, the plaintiffs obtained a decree on the 18-12-1948. against them for the recovery of rent due upto 19-10-1948. The plaintiffs further alleged that a sum of Rs. 1415/- had become due as arrears of rent from the defendants from 20-10-1948, upto 28-2-1951, but the defendants did not pay the rent in spite of notice to them. The plaintiffs further added a sum of Rs. 1s5/-as interest at 1% P. M. to this amount and claimed the sum of Rs. 1600/ -. Both the defendants filed separate written statements but the pleas raised by them are substantially the same. The defendants denied the execution of the rent note and further urged that they were the tenants of the shop from 6mt. 2000 and that upto the 12-6-1948, they never paid rent exceeding Rs. 200/- p. a. and that the rent note dated the 12-6-1948, was illegal and void under the Jaipur Rent Control Order, 1947, and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover any rent in excess of Rs. 200/- p. a.

(2.) THE plaintiffs filed another suit No. 294 of 1951 claiming the amount of Rs. 369/8/- from 1-3-1950 to 26-10-1951 as rent and Rs. 16/8/- as interest. Similar written statements were filed by the defendants in that suit. The two suits were consolidated by the learned Civil Judge, Sikar, on 17-3-1952, and they were decided by one judgment dated 29-5-1952. The learned Civil Judge held that the rent of the disputed shop on 1-9-1939, was not more than Rs. 200/- p. a. and the standard rent was, therefore, Rs. 300/-p. a. , under the Jaipur Rent Control Order. Calculating the arrears of rent at that rate, he passed a decree for Rs. 675/-in suit no. 38 of 1951, and for Rs. 200/-in suit No. 294 of 1951, in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants and dismissed the rest of the claim of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed two appeals. Appeal No. 75 of 1952 was in suit No. 38 of 1951, and in this appeal the plaintiffs claimed that the decretal amount should be increased by Rs. 675/ -. Appeal No. 74 of 1952 was in suit No. 294 of 1951 and in this the plaintiffs claimed an increase of Rs. 213/- in the decretal amount. The defendants also filed cross-objections in both these appeals, in which they claimed that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any decree for rent in excess of Rs. 200/-p. a. and they claimed proportionate reduction in the decretal amount in both the suits.

(3.) BOTH the appeals were consolidated by the learned District Judge. The learned district Judge by one common judgment disposed them of by awarding rent at Rs. 600/- p. a. and increased the decretal amount by Rs. 740/-in suit No. 38 of 1951 and by Rs. 196/8/- in suit No. 294 of 1951. The cross-objections were dismissed, gaya Prasad defendant filed one appeal against both the decrees of the learned district Judge. Sikar. In this appeal he has prayed that the judgments and decrees passed by the trial Courts be restored and the decretal amount be reduced by rs. 936/8/- which had been ordered to be increased under the judgment of the learned District Judge.