Judgment

BEG,J.:- These are defendants appeals by certificate of fitness of the case for appeal to this Court directed against a judgment of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court.

2. The plaintiff, who is a Receiver of a property known as Nabu building, appointed specifically for realising rent from tenants of the building, sued the defendant for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1,31,266/- at the allegedly agreed rate of rent of Rs. 1700/- per month. In the alternative, the plaintiff prayed that a decree may be awarded at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month in accordance wit the orders of the Deputy Custodian, Jodhpur, who, it seems, had fixed that amount provisionally when litigation with regard to the property was going on the assumption, subsequently found to be erroneous, that the owner of it was an evacuee, Again, in the alternative, the plaintiff Receiver, who was, quite understandably, not certain of the exact position, had asked for a fixation of standard rent, under the provisions of Section 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in case no rent was found to be either agreed upon or settled, Furthermore, the plaintiff had prayed for the fixation of a provisional rent to be paid during the pendency of the suit, "and, in case it is not paid, the defendant be ordered to vacate the premises." The defendant had pleaded, inter alia, that proper Court fee should have been paid for relief by way of eviction of defendant from the premises, which had been taken on rent for the purposes of running a hotel called the "Grand Hotel" at Jodhpur. The defendant had also denied the jurisdiction of the Court of the Civil Judge, where the suit was filed, to fix standard rent. He had objected to the competence of the Receiver to sue on the ground that he had not been appointed to realise the rent. There was an objection also to the frame of the suit by misjoinder of causes of action in suing for arrears of rent as well as for fixation of a standard rent. There was contest also on demands for various expenses alleged by the defendant to have been incurred by him over items such as making of certain constructions or payments to the Custodian or to the landlord.

3. The Civil Judge, overruling technical objections, had passed a decree for Rs. 42, 797.50, np. as arrears of rent, after fixing Rs. 782/- per month as the standard rent of the premises. The arrears of rent were payable in installments of Rs. 5000/-every tow months, beginning from 1st June, 1961, with interest at 6% per annum in case of default. The suit for the remaining reliefs claimed had been dismissed with proportionate costs.

4. The High Court, on counter appeals by the Receiver as well as by the tenant, against the Civil Judges judgment, had examined the whole evidence and based its finding, that there was an agreed rent of Rs. 1250/-, principally upon an admission made by the defendant appellant Girdhari Lal in proceedings before the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The High Court had reached the conclusion that this was also the basic rent under the first proviso the section 6 of the Act. It had dismissed the tenants appeal but had partly allowed the Receivers appeal by passing a decree for Rupees 75,718/- instead of Rs. 42,797.50 np. awarded by the Trial Court.

5. The High Court had, in our opinion rightly, overruled the objection that a decree for rent for mesne profits during the pendency of the suit could not be granted under Order 20, Rule 12 Civil Procedure Code in this case. The defendant had himself pleaded here that the suit was for ejectment on which the additional Court-fee had to the paid. The High court pointed out that the plaintiff had paid the additional Court-fee for a suit for ejectment. Hence, it held that it was not open to the defendant to object to the award of mesne profits on the ground that there was not suit for ejectment before the Court. This was, we think, quite a frivol