R.S. BACHAWAT, J.

(1) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment by a landlord against a tenant. The defendant is the tenant of six shops belonging to Thakurji Shri Shri Dwarkadheeshji installed in the temple at Chaura Raasta, Jaipur. Devendra Prasad is the adhikari or manager of the temple. He gave a notice to the defendant to quit the shop on 1/08/1957. On 28/02/1958, the deity and Devendra Prasad filed a suit against the defendant claiming recovery of possession of-the six shops and Rs. 1,006.00 on account of arrears of rent. The suit was governed by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act No. XVII of 1950). The plaintiffs asked for ejectment of the defendant on the ground that he had sub-let the six shops. The other grounds of ejectment were not established, and it is not necessary to mention them. The courts below concurrently found that Devendra Prasad as the adhikari of the temple was entitled to give the notice to quit and to maintain the suit.

(2) THE trial court held that (1) all the six shops were sub-let by the defendant; (2) the sub-letting was with the permission of the landlord and (3) the notice to quit was waived by acceptance of rent subsequently accrued due. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the suit so far as it claimed ejectment and passed a decree for Rs. 1,006.00 on account of arrears of rent. The plaintins filed an appeal against the decree. The District Judge, Jaipur City, dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs filed a second appeal against the decree. The High court held that (1) there was one integrated tenancy of all the six shops ; (2) four shops were sub-let with the permission of the landlord ; (3) two shops were sub-let without the permission of the landlord towards the end of 1947 ; (4) the tenant having sub-let a part of the preroues without the permission of the landlord the ground of eviction under clause (e) of Section 13(1) was made out and the landlord was entitled to a decree for possession of all the six shops, and (5) there was no waiver of the notice to quit. Accordingly, the High court allowed the appeal and passed a decree for eviction of the defendant from the six shops. The present appeal has been filed by the defendant after obtaining special leave.

(3) COUNSEL for the appellant conceded that there was no waiver of the notice to quit by acceptance of rent or otherwise. The points arising for determination in this appeal are : (1) was there one integrated tenancy of all the six shops ? (2) were the two shops sub-let without the permission of the landlord towards the end of 1947 ? and (3) is the sub-letting a ground of ejectment under clause (e) of Section 13(1) of the Rent Act ?

(4) AS to the first question, we find that four shops were let to the defendant in 1944 and the other two shops on the northern side of the staircase of the temple were let to him in 1945. The rent of the four shops was Rs. 150.00 per month. The rent of the other two shops was Rs. 65.00 per month. In Paragraph 5 of the plaint it was pleaded that in 1953 the defendant agreed to pay a consolidated rent of Rs. 251/8/-per month for all the six shops and to vacate them by 31/07/1957. In Paragraph 5 of the written statement the defendant denied this contract and alleged that in 1953 there was only an enhancement of rent. The first two courts found that in 1953 there was no new contract of tenancy, that there was only an increase of rent and that the other terms and conditions of the tenancy remained unaltered. This finding was not vitiated by any error of law.

(5) A mere increase or reduction of rent does not necessarily import the surrender of the existing lease and the grant of a new tenancy. As stated in Hill and Redmans Law of Landlord and Tenant, 14th ed., Article 385, p. 493:

"BUT a surrender does not follow from a mere agreement made during the tenancy for the reduction or increase of rent, unless there is some special reason to in