( 1 ) IN this group of Civil Revision Applications, the respondent is the judgment-creditor and petitioners are the judgment-debtors (defendants ). It appears that the respondent-plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 461 of 1988 against Manubhai Dahyabhai Parmar (since deceased) now represented by legal heirs and representatives, who are the petitioners. The suit was filed to recover possession of the suit premises for non-payment of rent commencing from 9-3-1987 at the rate of Rs. 29. 00 per month till the date of the suit and for further relief of payment of rent or mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 29. 00 till the possession of the suit premises is handed over to the plaintiff. In such suit, the heirs and legal representatives of the original defendant appeared and contended that the rent at the rate of Rs. 29. 00 per month was excessive and the standard rent was Rs. 15. 00 only. It appears at the hearing of the suit, i. e. , on 17th March, 1993 before Civil judge, (SD), a compromise Pursish was filed at Exhibit-39, which inter alia directed that the projected shed beyond 6 feet in the western direction in the land of the plaintiff was to be removed by the defendant. Secondly, it was agreed between the parties that monthly standard rent of the room was Rs. 39. 00 and standard rent was accordingly decided and it was directed that defendant shall pay the standard rent every month at the rate of Rs. 39. 00. The third condition stipulated that all arrears of rent then due were to be paid by the defendant at a time on or before 15th May 1993 and if the defendant fails to pay the rent, it was directed that the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover possession of the suit room by treating the said consent decree as decree for possession. The fourth condition stipulated that in case the defendant would pay up the rent within the time stipulated in the consent terms or by 31st March, 1993, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to recover possession of the suit premises and the defendant shall, thereafter, pay rent every month at the aforesaid rate of Rs. 39. 00 per month.

( 2 ) IN Civil Revision Application No. 308 of 1994, the very landlord sued to recover possession of the suit room, inter alia on the ground that rent was due and payable at the rate of Rs. 30. 00 per month from 30th November, 1984, i. e. , for a period of 23 months and that the defendant was liable to pay the same. He also claimed mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 30. 00 per month from the defendant till realisation of possession. The defendant-original tenant Fogatbhai Jivabhai Parmar, expired and was represented by his heirs and legal representatives, who are the petitioners before this Court. They appeared before the tiral Court and resisted the suit by contending that the standard rent of the suit room at the rate of rs. 30/- was excessive and that standard rent of the suit room as per Municipal record was only Rs. 15. 00. It appears that when the suit was posted for final hearing before the Fourth Jt. Civil Judge (JD), a compromise Pursis was filed at Exhibit-31 and it inter alia directed the defendant to remove projected portion beyond 6 feet from the rented room in the western portion of the land of the plaintiff. It was also stipulated that parties have agreed that the rent of Rs. 40. 00 per month would be the standard rent and the defendants-tenants were directed to pay monthly rent at the rate Rs. 40. 00 every month, that being the standard rent. It was also directed that mesne profit due on the date of the suit shall be paid all at a time on or before 15th of May, 1993 by the defendant and in case the defendant would fail to pay up such rent, the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the suit shop by treating the said consent terms as a decree for possession. It was further stipulated that if defendant would pay up the rent and mesne profit by 31st May, 1993 at the aforesaid rate, plaintiff was not entitled to recover possession