BHARGAVA, J.—The above two appeals and the revision application have been filed on behalf of the landlord against the tenant and raise a common question of law. Hence they are disposed of by one judgment.

2. The two appeals and the revision application arise out of suits filed by the landlord for arrears of rent. In appeal No. 118 of 1956, there was also a prayer in the suit for ejectment of the tenant but I am informed that the tenant has already vacated the shop and that question need not be decided now. So the only dispute between the parties is with regard to the arrears of rent. The claim for arrears of rent in second appeal No. 98 of 1956 is for the period commencing from 13th June, 1947 to 5th March, 1952. In Second appeal No. 188 of 1956, the arrears of rent are claimed for the period from 4th May, 1952 to 31st March, 1953. In the revision application arrears are, claimed from 1st April, 1953 to 5th April, 1956.

3. The suits were instituted by Surajmal on whose death during the pendency of these appeals his legal representative Gyanchand was brought on record. Plaintiffs case was that on 13th June 1947, he purchased the shop from one Ram Pratap Gandhi. At that time the respondent was occupying this shop as the tenant of Ram Pratap Gandhi. Under the law which the prevailed, plaintiff was required to obtain a certificate from the Rent Controller for filing a suit for eviction of the tenant. He, therefore applied to the Rent Controller for such certificate on 22nd June, 1948 and obtained an ex-parte order. The defendant applied for setting aside this ex parte order and in the meantime, parties came to a compromise. The defendant executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff on 30th September, 1949 agreeing to pay rent in future at the rate of Rs. 35/- p.m. and the plaintiff agreed to carry out some repairs in the shop. The arrears of rent were to be paid at the rate of Rs. 4/8/- p.m. After this agreement, the defendant did not pay rent although the plaintiff carried out the repairs. In the first suit he claimed Rs. 119/- at the rate of Rs. 4/8/- p.m. from 13th June, 1947 to 29th August, 1949, Rs. 980/- from 30th August, 1949 to 29th December, 1949 at the rate of Rs. 35/- p. m. and Rs. 130/- as damages from 30th December, 1951, to 5th March, 1952 @ Rs. 2/- per day, -/8/- for the expenses of the notice and Rs. 25/- as damages for deterioration of shop.

4. The respondent contested the suit, admitted the execution of the agreement but stated that it was not binding upon him because it was executed under undue influence because of the fear from being ejected from the shop. It was also stated that the plaintiff failed to carry out the repairs as under-taken by him in the agreement and on that ground also the agreement was unenforceable.

5. The trial court framed issues with regard to the pleas raised by the defendant but found both the issues against him. Plaintiffs claim for Rs. 119/- was held to be barred by limitation. His suit for three years rent was decreed at the rate of Rs. 10/12/-p.m. The plaintiff preferred an appeal in the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur City and it was urged in that court that the trial court was not entitled to determine fair rent contrary to the agreement entered into between the parties. In so far as the pleas raised by the defendant were concerned, the learned Senior Civil Judge agreed with the finding of the trial court and held that the agreement was enforceable, as the plaintiff had carried out adequate repairs. On the question whether fair rent could be determined in the suit on the plea raised by the defendant, the appellate court relying upon a decision of this Court in Panna Lal Vs. Bhonery Lal (1) held that it could be done. The learned Judge therefore, raised the basic rent of Rs. 4/8/- by 2-1/2 times according to the provisions of sec. (6)(2)(b) of the Raj-asthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction), Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the Act) and adding Rs. 6/4/- for additional r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document