CHHANGANI, J - (1.) -
(2.) THESE four appeals arise out of two suits between the same parties, the earlier being a suit for mere arrears of rent and the latter being a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment in respect of the same premises and are connected with each other and deserve to be disposed of by one judgment The material facts may be stated as follows: - In the city of Jodhpur outside the Jalorigate there is a building known by the name of "tapariya Mansion". It belonged to Shri Jai Narayan Tapariya and his family. In March 1944 a portion of this building was let out by deceased Jai Narayan to Jodhpur Commercial Bank (hereinafter referred to as the "bank") at a monthly rent of Rs. 150 per month for a period of five years ending on 31st March, 1949. Although the initial period of the lease expired on 31st March, 1949, the Bank continued to remain in possession of the premises. Negotiations were commenced between Jai Narayan Tapariya and the authorities of the Bank for the terms of the lease after the 31st March, 1949. There was a protracted correspondence and eventually, on 28th October, 1949, Jai Narayan had a meeting with the Chairman and the General Manager of the Bank at Bombay. During that meeting the terms relating to continuance of the lease were discussed and an oral agreement was reached The main terms agreed were subsequently incorporated in a letter No. 5/ F. 10 52-731 dated 29 10 49 addressed by Manager, Bombay Branch, to Jai Narayan Tapariya. They may be reproduced here: - - " (l) Rent to be fixed @ Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) per month from 1st April, 1949 (2) An agreement for ten years with an option to the Bank for further five years on the same terms of rent. (3) Fixing of steel shutters for the doors and the stair case for the cellar to be carried out when the amount of Rs. 9000 is accumulated with us by crediting sundry deposit rent account at the rate of Rs. 500 per month, being the monthly rent of our premises. (4) You will bear half of the costs which we shall have to pay to our solicitors in respect of the lease agreement. " It may al|so be mentioned that after the despatch of this letter the Jodhpur Branch of the Bank opened a sundry deposit rent account and credited Rs. 500 per month in that rent account on account of the rent of the premises. Credit entries were also made in this account in respect of the amount payable by the Bank to the landlord on account of electricity and water charges. It may be mentioned at this stage that Jainarayan and his son Laxminarayan had mortgaged the entire building Tapariya Mansion with Udaibhan and Devchand and others to accrue certain loan. The mortgages having not secured the repayment of the loan, filed a suit on the basis of the mortgage deed. In that suit, Badridass, the present plaintiff, was appointed as a receiver of the property. The plaintiff, Badridass made some efforts to secure the recovery of the rent and electricity and water charges from the Bank, but having not succeeded, filed a suit (No. 36 of 1954) on 1. 6. 54. In this suit he prayed for a decree for a sum of Rs. 33,385. The particulars of this amount is as follows: - 1. Arrears of rent for 62 months from 1. 4. 49 to 31st May, 1954, Rs. 31. 000 were calculated at Rs. 500 p. m. ; the plaintiff gave a credit of Rs. 450 on account of the rent for three months received at the rate of Rs. 150 per month and a credit of Rs. 1,000 cash received from the Bank. The amount on account of rent was thus reduced to . . . . . . . . . Rs. 29,550/- 2 Water charges . . . . . . . . . Rs. 81/- 3. Electricity charges . . . . . . . . . Rs. 1,446/- Interest . . . . . . . . . Rs. 2,308/- Rs. 33,385/- 4. This suit was contested by the defendant-Bank. The defendant-Bank admitted having taken the lease of the premises in the year 1944 at a monthly rent of Rs 150 per month. It was also admitted that there were some negotiations for the creation of a fresh lease after 31st March, 1949. The Bank, however, did not admit that an oral agreement was reached between Jai Narayan and the General Manager of the Bank. It also did not accept that Ex. 1 was sent by the Manager of the Bank at Bombay. It was also pleaded that even if, Ex. 1 was held proved, it could not bring about the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as it was not written on a proper stamp paper and was not registered. A plea was also taken that the agreement to pay Rs. 500 per month was void as it was an agreement to pay rent in excess of the standard rent of the premises. Various other pleas were also taken, but we are not concerned with them in these appeals. While the suit was going on, on 3. 6. 57 the plaintiff filed yet another suit in which besides claiming the arrears of rent a prayer for ejectment of the Bank from the suit premises was also made. In this suit, the plaintiff prayed for a decree for the amount of Rs. 18,211/13/- as follows: (i) Rent for 36 months from 1. 6. 54 to 31. 5. 57 . . . . . . . . . Rs. 18000/- (ii) Electricity charges . . . . . . . . . Rs. 139/2/- (iii) Water charges . . . . . . . . . Rs. 72/-/- (iv) Notice expenses . . . . . . . . . Rs. -/11/- Rs. 18,211/13/- The trial court framed a number of issues in both the suits. Although the suits were initially tried separately, but they were consolidated at a later stage. They were, however, disposed of on the same date, i. e. , on 24. 9. 60, though by two separate judgments. The trial court held that Ex. 1 was issued by Shri C. B. Diwanji as Manager of the Bank at Bombay and that it bears the initials of Shri N. L. Daga, Chief Accountant of the Bank at Bombay, who subsequently was promoted as Manager in one of the branches of the Bank. The eventual conclusion arrived at by the trial court was that the Bank had agreed to raise the rent from Rs. 150 to Rs 500/ -. The trial court also held that Chhiti Ex. 1 dated 29. 10. 49 was executed by the defendant No. 1 and that it was accepted by Jai Narayan. Issues No. 1 and 2 were thus decided in favour of the plaintiff. Dealing with the question of the admissibility of letter Ex. 1 in the absence of its having been not written on a stamp paper and having not been registered, the trial judge referred the case of Ramkumar Das vs. Jagdish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb (1) and held that a valid and subsisting arrangement had come into existence between Jainarayan and the defendant Bank and that the Bank agreed to become month to month tenant @ Rs. 500 per month of the plaintiff. The trial judge considering the validity of the agreement between the parties fixing the rent at Rs. 500 per month, observed that the basic rent was Rs. 150 per month and that the standard rent should not have exceeded 2-1/2 time of the basic rent and, therefore, the maximum standard rent could not exceed Rs. 375 per month. The trial judge accordingly fixed standard rent at Rs. 375 per month. The trial court consequently held that the agreement to pay Rs. 500 as rent was void having regard to the provisions of sec, 8 (2) of the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The trial court, however, found that the plaintiff landlord had invested substantial amounts in carrying out improvements over the building. These improvements included the construction of a lavatory, collapsible doors and the fixing of shutters to the stair case. The cost of these improvements was assessed by the trial judge at Rs. 8,157/3/3. On the basis of these improvements the trial judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to a further addition of Rs, 56 to the monthly standard rent of Rs. 375. It was thus held that the plaintiff was entitled to charge rent @ Rs. 431 per month. On these findings the trial judge calculated the amount of rent for 62 months from 1. 4. 49 to 31 5. 54 at Rs. 26,722 and the light and the water charges were assessed at Rs. 1,527 the total amount thus found due was Rs. 28,249. Out of this the trial court gave a credit to the defendant for Rs 1,527 on account of prior payment of light and water charges and for Rs. 7,157/3/- on account of expenditure incurred by the Bank on improvements and Rs. 1450 paid previously. The total of the amounts credited came to Rs. 10,134/3/3. The principal amount thus found due and decreed by the trial court was Rs. 18,114/12/9. The trial court further allowed interest up to the date of the suit @ Rs. 4-1/2% and fixed the amount at Rs. 810. The trial court accordingly decreed the plaintiff's suit for an amount of Rs. 18,924/12/9. The trial court further allowed future interest on the decretal amount from the date of the suit till final satisfaction @ 6% per annum. In the second suit the trial court found that the plaintiff was entitled to Rs. 15,416 on account of rent for three years and Rs. 211/13/- on account of light and water charges. The total amount thus decreed was Rs. 15,627/13/ -. It was further directed by the trial court that the decretal amount will carry future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the suit till final satisfaction. A decree for ejectment was also passed. The trial court also granted a decree for future rent from 1. 6. 57 till actual eviction @ Rs. 431 per month, but this decree was, however, subject to the payment of the additional court fee according to law. Aggrieved by this decree the plaintiff landlord and the defendant-Bank filed these appeals, During the pendency of the appeals, the Jodhpur Commercial Bank was amalgamated with the Central Bank of India and after nationalisation the successor Bank is now known as Central Bank of India The necessary corrections in the title of four appeals were made with the consent of both the parties. The plaintiff landlord claimed that a decree for the agreed rent of Rs. 500/- per month should have been awarded. He further claimed additional amounts on account of interest, costs and compensatory costs. In the appeal against the decree in the earlier suit that is appeal No. 19 of 1961, he has prayed for an additional decree of Rs 6,701/ consisting of Rs. 4. 278/- on account of difference of rent between the agreed rent and the rent allowed; Rs 927/10/- on account difference between interest claimed and the interest allowed; Rs. 869 6/- on account of costs not allowed and Rs. 625 on account of compensatory costs u/s. 35-A not allowed In appeal No. 20 of 1961 arising out of second suit he has claimed Rs 5474/- on account of difference between the rent claimed and rent allowed for the period of 1 -6-57 to 10-1-61. In the second appeal, he has also sought a clarification about the interest; his contention being that he has been allowed interest on the amount of arrears of rent accruing during the period of pendency of the litigation also. The defendant Bank in its appeals contends that the suit should have been decreed at the rate of Rs. 150 per month and that the plaintiffs' claim on account of interest and for pendente lite arrears of rent should not have been decreed. It was also contended that the amount added to the standard rent on account of improvements carried out in the leased premises was wrongly calculated and that it should have been Rs. 51/- only instead of Rs. 56/- and that this additional amount should have been allowed from the month of May 1953 when the improvement was actually completed. We have heard the counsel for the parties and consider that the proper way to deal with these appeals will be to formulate the various controversies on the submissions made at the Bar and to adjudicate upon those controversies. An attempt to give separate findings on the appeals will involve unnecessary repetition of facts, arguments and findings.
(3.) INCIDENTALLY, we may point out that Mr. Maheshwari did not join any controversy with regard to the proof of Ex 1. Having regard to the arguments made before us the main questions arising for our determination may be formulated as follows: - (1) Whether Ex. 1 is not binding on the Bank, it having not been executed by the Chief Agent of the Jodhpur Branch, who alone, according to the defendant, was competent to execute a rent deed? (2) Whether Ex. 1 can bring about the relationship of the landlord and the tenant i. e. between the owner of the property and the Bank? (3) Whether the agreement embodied in Ex. 1 requiring the Bank to pay Rs. 500/- per month as rent is void and unenforceable being an agreement to pay rent in excess of the standard rent? If so, whether the standard rent has not been correctly assessed and it should be only Rs. 150/-? (4) (a) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 9% as claimed by him and (b) whether the plaintiff is entitled to costs as claimed by the appellant? The first point need not detain us very long. It is not disputed that the oral agreement on behalf of the Bank was entered into by the Chairman of the Bank and the Manager at Bombay Head Office It is also significant that after this agreement the Chier Agent of the Bank at Jodhpur opened a 'sundry Deposit Rent Account' and began crediting Rs. 500/- per month. There are some letters on record that the Chief Agent of the Bank at Jodhpur was in the know of the negotiations in connection with the settlement of rent for the period after 31-3 49 and that he was a consenting party to the final agreement. We need only refer to one letter Ex. 37 addressed by the Chief Agent of Jodhpur. In our opinion, there is no substance in the contention that the Chief Agent, Jodhpur, had not executed the deed Ex. 1 and as such the bank cannot be deemed to have arrived at an agreement with the landlord fixing Rs. 500/- per month from 1. 4. 49. The conduct of the Chief Agent in opening the account to credit Rs. 500/- per month is sufficient to repel this plea and it is unnecessary to enter into a detailed discussion of the evidence on this point. On the second point the trial court relying upon, Mohan Lal vs. Ganda Singh (2); Ram Kumar Das vs. Jagdish Chandra Deo. Dhabal Deb and another (1), Chiman Lal vs. H. H. Maharajadhiraj Shri Sumer Singhji (3) Md. Azizul Haque vs. Chaudhry (4) held that even if the rent deed is not registered and inoperative still it can be used for proving oral agreement of the lease and the tenancy that is created by legal implication would only be monthly tenancy under sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. We have noticed the various cases and have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the defendant-tenant became a month to month tenant of the owner of the property. The third controversy between the parties is the main one and there have been vehement arguments on either side in support of the rival contentions. The plaintiff-landlord's case is that in a suit for arrears of rent by a landlord it is not open to the defendant-tenant to raise a controversy that the rent agreed upon is in excess of the standard rent and he can not pray for fixation of the standard rent. According to him, having regard to the definition of the standard rent in sec. 3 sub-clause (vi) and provisions of secs. 4, 6 and 8 of the Act a tenant feeling aggrie-ved on account of the rent being excessive must file a suit under sec. 6 of the Act for fixation of proper rent and must pay court fee and obtain a decree. Mr. Maheshwari, on the other hand, contends that sec. 8 of the Act should be interpreted widely and that under that it is open to the tenant to contend that the agreement to pay a certain agreed amount of rent be declared void as it is in excess of the standard rent and a court is competent to consider and determine the standard rent and to declare the agreement relating to payment of rent as null and void and to treat the agreement, as if it were an agreement for the payment of the standard rent only. At the outset it will be proper to notice the relevant statutory provisions bearing on the rival contentions made at bar. Sec. 3 sub-clause (vi) of the Act defines "standard rent" as follows: - "standard rent" used in relation to any premises, means the rent therefor, determined in accordance with the provisions of this Act. " Sec. 5 provides that the rent payable for any premises situated within the areas to which this Act extends for the time being shall, subject to the other provisions thereof, be ordinarily such, as may be agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant. ;