The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's consideration of the rate of rent, the award of interest prior to the suit, and the equitable jurisdiction of the court.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the defendant is directed against the Judgment and decree dt. 10-4-1973 in OS. 2 of 1971 on the file of the Court of the principal Civil Judge, Mysore, decreeing respondent-plaintiff's suit for recovery of arrears of rent with interest and costs.

( 2 ) THE facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are: Respondent having come into possession of a vacant site in Mysore under a lease granted to him by the Nanjarai Bahadur Chatram Fund committee. Mysore, granted a sub lease of the same In favour of the appellant, who took the site for the purpose of running a toddy shop therein. It is not disputed that the appellant commenced his business of vending toddy on the said site from 1-1-1968. It is also common ground that there was an agreement of lease dt. 31-12-1967 executed between the parties, which, however, was not registered. After being put into possession of the said site, appellant did not make any payments towards rent to the respondent. Pursuant to an order of eviction made In HRC. 300 of 1970 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Mysore, respondent took possession of the site on 17-12-1972. As to these facts, there is no dispute,

( 3 ) ON 4-1-1971, respondent instituted the suit from which the appeal arises alleging that the appellant had failed to pay rents for the period between 1-1-1968 to 31-12-1970 and sought recovery of the sum of rs. 18,000 in this behalf together with the sum of Rs. 4,320 claimed as interest prior to suit on the unpaid rents.

( 4 ) THE appellant while admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant, however, contended that the rent of Rs. 500 per month was agreed to be paid not for the mere vacant site alone, but in consideration of the promise on the part of the respondent to erect certain structures on the land for the use of the appellant, and that as the respondent had failed to carry out this obligation on his part, appellant Was liable to pay onlv Rs. 150 per month, which was the rate at which respondent, in turn, had to pay to the said Nanjaraj Bahadur Chatram Fund committee.

( 5 ) ON these pleadings, the Court below settled the following issues: 1 (a) Whether the defendant took the schedule property on lease from the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs. 500 as alleged by the plaintiff? or 1 (b) Whether the defendant is liable to pay at Rs. 150 per month for the reasons stated in para 12 of his written statement. (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover 18 per cent interest, as claimed ? 3. To what reliefs the parties are entitled? in the Court below appellant and respondent tendered evidence as DW. 1 and PW. 1 respectively and Exts. P1 to P6 were marked on the side of the respondent. The agreement dt. 31-12-1967 which was also sought to be relied upon by the respondent was held inadmissible by the Court below, as, according to it, the said document was compulsorily registerable, but was unregistered. However, on an appreciation of the evidence on record and on the basis of the admitted relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the Court below came to record finding on Issue-1 in favour of the respondent and entered a decree in his favour. The Court below also held on Issue-2 that respondent was entitled to interest prior to suit under the provisions of the Interest Act and awarded interest in the sum of Rs. 2,880 at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The appellant questions the correctness of the judgment and decree in this appeal.

( 6 ) WE have heard Sri P. Shivanna, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri B. S. Keshava Iyengar, learned Counsel for the respondent. We have been taken through the evidence on record and the judgment of the Court below.

( 7 ) IN support of the appeal Sri Shivanna urged the following contentions: (a) That the finding of the Court below that the rate of rent was rs. 500 p. m. is erroneous and is not supportable on the basis of the evidence on record; and (b) that award of int