Dave, J.—This is a second appeal by the defendant in a suit for the arrears of rent and ejectment. Both the parties are residents of Didwana and the property relating to the suit, which is a Nohra is also situated in the same town.

2. The plaintiff respondent Shri Bhagwans case in the trial court was that the said nohra was leased out by his father Ram Narayan to the appellant Banarsilal on First Ashadh Vadi 1 Svt. 2007 (corresponding to 1st June 1950) for one year on a rent of Rs. 60/- The appellant executed a rent-note in favour of Ram Narayan Ram Bilas which was a firm name of respondents father. Thereafter the said property came to the exclusive share of the respondent on account of a partition in their family. The respondents father gave a notice to the appellant on 9th May 1951 informing him that the nohra had gone to the share to the respondent. It was further averred by the respondent that since he needed that property for his own personal use, he gave a notice to the appellant on 28th May, 1951 that he should give vacant possession of the property on First Ashadh Vadi 1, Svt.2008 that on his failure to vacate the property the respondent would take legal action against him and he will have to pay an enhanced rate of Rs. 10/- p.m. till the date of his eviction. It was stated that the appellant gave no reply to that notice. It was therefore prayed that a decree of Rs. 102/8 for the arrears of rent (Rs. 60/-being for the first year and Rs. 42/8 the remaining period up) to the date of the suit) and ejectment be given against the appellant.

3. In his written statement it was admitted by the appellant that he had executed the rent-note referred to by the plaintiff-respondent but it was pleaded that it was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. It was further averred that the nohra belonged to Sukhawats, that Rambilas Ram Narayan had a decree against Sukhawats and in execution thereof they got that property, that the appellant was already in possession of the nohra and therefore he obtained constructive possession and executed a lease deed in favour of Ram Narayan Rambilas. According to him, the suit could be brought only by Ramnarayan Rambilas and the respondent was not competent to bring it. He admitted receipt of both the notices but regarding the first it was contended that it was given by one Sayed Ali who was an unauthorised person and that the second notice was invalid since an enhanced rate of rent was demanded thereby. The plaintiffs plea about his personal need of the house was not contested.

4. The trail court thereupon framed the following five issues :—

(1) Whether the lease deed dated 1st June 1930 was compulsorily registrable and hence no suit is maintainable on the basis of such a lease ?

(2) Whether the notice dated 9.5.51 given by Sayed Ali on behalf of the firm Ram Narayan Rambilas was by unauthorised person and hence the defendant was not bound by it ?

(3) Whether the defendant is under an obligation to pay enhanced rent ?

(4) Whether the notice dated 25.5.52 was invalid owing to the clause regarding enhanced rent and the plaintiff is not entitled to get the house vacated after giving this notice ? and

(5) Relief?

All the issues were decided against the defen-dant and the suit was decreed as prayed for.

5. The defendant went in appeal. The first appellate court upheld the trial courts decree regarding the defendants ejectment but it amended the decree for arrears of rent. It was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to receive the rent at the enhanced rate and that he would get the rent only at the rate of Rs. 5/- p.m. till the date of defendants ejectment, The defendant is not satisfied with the decree and therefore he has come to this Court.

6. The trial courts finding on issue No. 2 was that Sayed Ali was duly authorised to give notice by the respondents father Ram Narayan. This finding was not contested in the first appellate court as also in this Court. It is only the findings on the remaining iss

Click Here to Read the rest of this document