- (1.) THIS is a landlord-tenant marathon. It has a chequared history. Defendants are the revision-petitioners before me. Landlords are plaintiff-non-petitioners. Initially the plaintiffs brought Civil Original Suit No. 60/71 before the trial court for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. The tenancy was not in dispute. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit shop had been let-out at Rs. 9/-p. m. They claimed that tenancy had been determined in accordance with a proper notice. The tenant-defendants denied that shop had been let-out at Rs. 9/-p. m. They claimed that no notice for determination of tenancy had been served. They claimed that no notice for determination of tenancy had been served. They pleaded that the rent was excessive and standard rent was liable to be fixed at Rs. 3/ p. m. The trial court found that the shop had been let-out on 11. 2. 43 at a rental Rs. 3/-p. m. It, however, found that notice for determination of tenancy had not been served. Upon these premises, the trial court dismissed the suit regarding ejectment but fixed the standard rent at Rs. 3/- p. m. with effect from 5. 7. 72.
(2.) AN appeal was filed by the plaintiffs before the learned District Judge, Jodhpur against the dismissal of the suit regarding ejectment. There was no appeal against fixation of standard rent. This appeal against fixation of standard rent. This appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 19. 3. 75, the appeal being Civil First Appeal No. 135/74. The plaintiffs filed a second appeal before this court, being Civil Second Appeal No. 260/75. This appeal was eventually withdrawn and a compromise was arrived at between, the parties. By this compromise the parties inter-alia agreed that the rent would be payable at the rate of Rs. 9/ p. m. It was stipulated that either side could bring a suit for fixation of standard rent under the new Act. It was further stipulated that judgments of the courts below would remain intact but the parties will bear their own costs through out. This Court accepted the compromise and inter-alia stated "the compromise is legal and is hereby recorded In view of the compromise, the appeal is dismissed as having withdrawn. "this closes chapter ho. 1 of the first round of litigation between the parties. Now opens chapter No. 2, whereby the present plaintiff-non-petitioners instituted a fresh suit for fixation of standard rent. It was pleaded that the father of the defendant Mohammed was tenant in the suit shop and the rent on 1. 1. 62 was Rs. 9/- p. m. and that was the basic rent. It was pleaded that this rent was very low. It was pleaded that the suit shop was situated on the main road of a busy market in the City of Jodhpur. It was prayed that the standard rent be fixed at Rs. 2250 with effect from 3. 9. 76. The defendant-revision - petitioners contended the suit before the trial court and pleaded that the standard rent had been earlier fixed at Rs. 3/ per month. It was pleaded that the rent of Rs. 9/ was highly excessive. It was denied that basic rent on 1. 1. 62 was Rs. 9/ p. m. According to them the basic rent was Rs. 3/ p. m. They relied upon the earlier judgment of the trial court referred to above. In the alternative, they pleaded that at best the rent could have been revised to Rs. 7. 50 p. m. They pleaded that the excess rent already paid after 8. 3. 76 be adjusted in the light of such standard rent which may be fixed by the court. They also claimed special costs to the tune of Rs. 500/. The trial court arrived at the conclusion that the standard rent had been determined at Rs. 3/ p. m. in the earlier suit vide judgment dt. 31. 5. 74. Jt fur-ther held that any agreement to pay higher rent was void being in contravention of the provisions of section 8 (2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction), Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act ). Upon such premises it accepted the basic rent to be at Rs. 3/p. m. and fixed the standard rent at Rs. 7. 50 p. m. with effect from the date the suit had been filed.
(3.) THE plaintiff-non-petitioners went in appeal against this judgment and decree. THE appeal was decided by the learned District Judge on 24. 5. 88, whereby it was observed that the compromise arrived at between the parties, which was reccrded by this court was valid and lawful and, therefore, the basic rent would be Rs. 9/ p. m. and as such the rent was liable to be fixed at Rs. 22. 50. Upon such premises it accepted the appeal and decreed the plaintiffs' suit fixing the standard rent at Rs. 22. 50 with effect from 4. 7. 77. It held plaintiff-petitioners entitled to recover rent at the aforesaid rate. Aggrieved, defendants which were respondents before the court below have come in revision. Learned counsel for revision-petitioners submits that even though a compromise had been recorded by this Court in S. B. Civil Second Appeal No. 260/75, yet, since the landlords had withdrawn their appeal, the judgment of the learned trial court survived in law, whereby standard rent had been fixed at Rs. 3/-p. m. The learned District Judge did not correctly appreciate this position and further did not correctly appreciate the provisions of section 8 (2) of the Act and, therefore, fell in error in fixing standard rent at Rs. 22. 50. According to him this was an illegality apparent on the record. In this connection he relied upon that portion of the comp-romise which recited that the appeal was being withdrawn and the judgment of the courts below would remain intact. It was submitted that the learned trial court was right in fixing standard rent at Rs. 7. 50 p. m. Reliance was placed in this connection upon Prem Raj Vs. The D. L. F. Housing and Construction (Private) Ltd. (1 ). It was submitted that the judgment of the learned first appellate court was without jurisdiction and at any rate the learned first appellate Judge had committed illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-non-petitioners. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioners opposes the revision petition and submits that, however, erroneous the judgment of the first appellate court may be, since it had jurisdiction to decide the appeal in the manner it did, the judgment does not suffer from any want of jurisdiction. It is further submitted that there was no illegality or material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction and hence this Court could not, under its revisional jurisdiction, interfere with the judgment of the learned first appellate court. I have considered the rival contentions and have carefully perused the judgment and the record of the courts below. ;