1. 1. These four civil first appeals, for having arisen out of the single civil suit (CO No. 83/2002), have been heard together and are taken up for disposal by this common judgment.The Background

2. The suit aforesaid was filed by the landlords plaintiff No. 1 Smt. Nirmala Mehta and her husband, plaintiff No.2 Shri Rajendra Mehta (appellants in CFA Nos. 549/2006 and 206/2008), against the tenants defendants Nos. 1 to 3, the United India Insurance Company Ltd., its Regional Manager, and its Divisional Manager (appellants in CFA Nos. 524/2006 and 257/2008) for recovery of arrears of rent, fixation of standard rent with enhancement, and eviction from the suit premises on the grounds of default, nuisance, and reasonable and bona fide requirement.

3. In the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.05.2006, the learned trial Court, though held that the defendants were not in arrears of rent nor had committed default in payment nor caused nuisance but found that the plaintiffs had been able to establish their requirement of the suit premises for the purpose of residence of the old-aged father of the plaintiff No.2. The learned trial Court, however, held that from out of the area of the suit premises as let to the defendants, admeasuring about 2126.50 square feet, only an area of about 250 square feet would be sufficient for the requirement as established, and proceeded to pass a so-called preliminary decree for eviction in favour of the plaintiffs in relation to the part of premises and observed that the portion to be vacated by the defendants shall be determined with further enquiry after obtaining a Commissioner's report. The learned Trial Court also found that the agreed rent of the premises in question had been Rs. 7,438.75 per month and, with reference to a proposal stated by the plaintiffs in the year 2001 for 35% increase, proceeded to fix the standard rent at Rs. 10,042.25 per month from the date of filing of the suit even after deduction of the aforesaid 250 square feet area.

4. Aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 24.05.2006, the defendants have preferred the appeal (CFA No.524/2006) questioning the findings so far recorded by the learned Trial Court against them and submit that the suit is required to be dismissed in toto. On the other hand, the plaintiffs have also preferred the appeal against the judgment and decree aforesaid (CFA No. 549/2006) questioning the findings so far recorded against them; and would urge that the suit is required to be decreed in toto. Earlier, by an interim order dated 20.09.2006 as passed in the defendant's appeal (CFA No.524/2006), this Court stayed further proceedings under the impugned judgment decree dated 24.05.2006; but the said interim order was vacated on 02.02.2007 and the record was returned to the Trial Court for preparation of final decree.

5. The learned Trial Court issued Commission to carry out the requirements of the preliminary decree dated 24.05.2006 and to suggest the area to be handed over in possession of the plaintiffs and, after adjudicating upon the objections as raised by the parties against the Commissioner's report, proceeded to draw a final decree on 03.04.2008 specifying the portion of the premises to be handed over to the plaintiffs and with further directions to the defendants not to use the open space in the building of the plaintiffs for the purpose of parking of the vehicles.

6. Again both the parties being dissatisfied with the decree so passed; have preferred the respective appeals. While the defendants have questioned the final decree dated 03.04.2008 in CFA No. 257/2008, on the other hand, the plaintiffs have questioned the same in CFA No. 206/2008.

7. In view of multiple questions arising for determination in these appeals, necessary it is to take into comprehension at the first the relevant of the pleadings of the partiesThe pleadings :

8. The plaintiffs, wife and husband, referred in their plaint as presented on 28.02.2002 the particul