S.Ali Ahmad, J. - (1.)This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of a suit filed by them for eviction and for realisation of rent. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The appeal failed. Thereafter, this second appeal has been filed.
(2.)Shortly stated, facts giving rise to this appeal are that the defendant- respondents were inducted on 1-I-1960 as tenants in one of the rooms of a residential house at a monthly rental of Rs. 32/-. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendants were provided some additional space with effect from 1-11-1971 and the rent was increased to Rs. 45/- per month with effect from that date. It is said that the defendants continued paying rent at the rate of Rs. 45/- per month till 30th September, 1974, but no rent was paid for the period thereafter. There fore, this suit was filed on 31-1-1975 on the ground of personal necessity and default in payment of rent. The defendants appeared and contested the suit. According to them, no additional space was provided to them on 1-11-1971. They however, accepted tVie position that the rent was increased to Rs. 45/-. But, according to them, this increase in rent was illegal and invalid. They, however, accepted the position that they paid rent at the rate of Rs. 45/- per month till 30th September, 1974. But according to them, they were paying Rs. 13/- per month extra with effect from 1-11-1971 and if the extra amount so paid was taken into consideration they were not defaulters. The defendants also denied that the plaintiffs required the suit premises in good faith.
(3.)The trial court accepted the case of the defendants that no additional accommodation was provided to them on 1-11-1971. It, however, held that the increase in rent from Rs. 32/- to Rs. 45/- was not valid, but the excess amount paid on that account could not be adjusted towards future rent. It, therefore, held the defendants to be defaulters. With regard to personal necessity, the trial court held in favour of the defendants. Further the trial court thought that although the defendants were defaulters but still the suit for eviction could not be decreed because no notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was given. It, therefore dismissed the suit.