The main legal point established in the judgment is that the benefit of first default in payment of rent by a deceased tenant extends to the heirs, and mere enhancement of rent without altering other lease conditions does not create a new tenancy.

JUDGMENT :

1. A civil suit filed by Shri Munshi Lal Sethi, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants (for short-‘the plaintiff’) for eviction and arrears of rent on the ground of default in payment of rent was decreed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jaipur City (East), Jaipur (for brevity-`the learned trial court’) vide judgment dated 25.3.1998; however, the learned Additional District Judge No.7, Jaipur City (for short-`the learned appellate court’) while allowing the civil regular appeal preferred by the respondents/defendants (for short-`the defendants’), set aside the decree of eviction vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 24.3.1999.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit as stated hereinabove stating therein that the suit property comprising of a shop, as described in para no.1 of the plaint, was taken on rent on 1.1.1971 by Shri Nauratanmal Sancheti, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants (hereinafter referred to as `the deceased tenant’). It was averred that on an earlier occasion, the plaintiff had filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the deceased tenant alleging default in payment of rent wherein, the learned trial court determined provisional rent for a period from 15.1.1977 to 3.11.1979 which was paid by the deceased tenant and a compromise dated 22.9.1987 was entered into between the parties whereunder, the tenant agreed to increase the rent by 20% from 1.1.1989 with further increase of 20% in the last paid rent after every three years besides house tax. It was stated that on payment of the provisional rent and in view of the compromise between the parties, the suit was decreed on 22.9.1987; but, protection was extended to the deceased tenant. It was stated that after death of Shri Nauratanmal, the defendants being his legal heirs, became tenant. It was further stated that as per the terms of the compromise decree, the defendants are under an obligation to pay rent @ Rs.535 per month from 1.1.1992; but, upto September, 1992, they have paid rent @ Rs.445 per month and have not paid any rent thereafter till filing of the suit. Alleging that the defendants have again committed default in payment of rent, the decree as aforesaid was prayed for

3. The defendants in their joint written statement admitted that the suit shop was taken on rent by the deceased tenant and the provisional rent determined in the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff against the deceased tenant was paid. It was averred that plaintiff was not entitled for monthly rent over and above Rs.65 and the compromise was hit by Section 8 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short-`the Act of 1950’). It was stated that after death of their father on 2.3.1992, the rent for a period of five months from November, 1992 to February, 1993 amounting to Rs.1780 was sent through money order by the defendants which was not accepted by the plaintiff, whereupon, a legal notice under Section 19A of the Act of 1950 dated 4.8.1993 was served upon the plaintiff to furnish his bank account number but, it was also not furnished and in these circumstances, they were compelled to deposit the rent for the months from November, 1992 to October, 1993 with the Court under Section 19A on 16.9.1993 and thereafter, they deposited six months rent vide demand draft dated 1.3.1994. It was submitted that therefore, they have committed no default. Along with written statement, the defendants also filed a counter claim praying for fixation of standard rent of the suit shop @ Rs.65 per month.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed six issues including relief. The issue no.1 was as to whether the defendants have committed second default in payment of rent for a period of six months and if so, its effect on the suit. After recording evidence of the respective parties, holding that the deceased tenant was already extended benefit of first default and the d