N.C.JAIN,J - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below by which the suit of the plaintiffs for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 6689.59 was decreed with proportionate costs.
(2.) THE facts of the case may briefly be noticed : The two plaintiffs, that is, Firm Ram Lal Harbans Lal through its partner Ram Lal and Ram Lal in his individual capacity filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. (sic),000/- by averring that the plaintiffs were in occupation, as a tenant, of shop No. 129, under the original owner one Ram Kishan who died leaving behind defendants as his heirs, who are sons and the widow of the aforesaid Ram Kishan. It was further averred that the plaintiff had paid the rent of the shop at the rate of Rs. 650/- per year. However, they were made to make double payment of rent in an ejectment application which was instituted by the landlord on the ground of non-payment of rent. It was averred that since they made the payment under threat of ejectment, they were entitled to recover the rent which had already been paid before the arrears of rent were tendered in the application for ejectment. The defendants contested the suit by denying the material averments which gave rise to the following issues : 1. Whether the plaintiff firm is registered under the Indian Partnership Act and Sh. Ram Lal is recorded as partner in the register of firm ? OPP 2. What is the rate of the rent and fixed between the parties of the demised premises ? OPP 3. What amount the plaintiff is entitled to recover ? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit ? OPD 5. Relief. Under issue No. 1 the trial Court found that the plaintiff-firm is registered. The rate of rent was found to be Rs. 650/- per year under issue No. 2. It was found under issue No. 3 that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 6689.50. Issue No. 4 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. The matter was taken up in appeal by the appellants. Before the first appellate Court the rate of rent of the demised premises was conceded to be Rs. 650/- per annum. Only one question was debated before the first appellate Court as to whether the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 6689.50. It has been held by the appellate Court that there was sufficient evidence to prove the double payment in the shape of receipts Exhibit P-1 to P-4 issued by Smt. Durga Devi one of the defendant who happens to be the widow of Ram Kishan. The appeal was consequently dismissed.
(3.) AFTER having a look at the record, I have come to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the Courts below are unexceptional. Through Exhibit P-2 a sum of Rs. 500/- were realised by Smt. Durga Devi from the plaintiff firm as rent for the period from 1.4.1961 to 31.3.1962. The demised premises consisted of two roomed shop and there was separate rent for the godown at the rate of Rupees 150/- per year. Receipt Exhibit P-3 relates to recovery of Rs. 650/- by way of rent for the period from 1.4.1965 to 31.3.1966. The third receipt Exhibit P-4 relates to the recovery of Rs. 650/- for the period from 1.4.1968 to 31.3.1969, again issued by Smt. Durga Devi. The last receipt Exhibit P-1 relates to the period from 1.4.1969 to 31.3.1970. All these receipts have been proved by their marginal witnesses whose statements have been discussed by the Courts below. Not only that, the account books of the plaintiff-firm maintained in the regular course of business have also been rightly relied upon. The appellate Courts has also rightly placed reliance upon the balance sheets as proved by Ram Lal PW-4 from 1962 to 1972 regarding payment of rent by the plaintiff-firm. In view of the afore-mentioned documentary evidence, I am unable to agree with the contention of the counsel for the appellant Shri A.K. Mittal that all the receipt are forged and the documentary evidence cannot be relied upon. I have myself compared the signatures of Smt. Durga Devi upon the receipts Exhibits P-1 and P-2 with the signatures on the power of attorney which do tally. There is nothing wrong with the finding of fact recorded by two Courts below.;