KAN SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment. The suit shop which is two storeyed is situated in Sawai Madhopur. The plaintiff -appellant claimed that it was let out to the father of the defendant -respondent Ramniwas on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/ - on 16 -6 54 The plaintiff sought the eviction of the defendants on the ground of their having committed three defaults in the payment of rent wthin a period of 18 months. The rent for three years amounting Rs. 720/ - was also claimed. The defendants admitted the tenancy but denied that the rent payable by them was Rs. 20/ - per month and asserted that the rent was only Rs. 11/ - per month. They denied the execution of the rent note on 16 6 54 by deceased Ramniwas. They further stated that they had been remitting the rent regularly to the plaintiff at Rs. 11/ - per month Dy money orders, but the plaintiff having accepted some of the money orders refused to accept the money orders later on. They further pleaded that Ramniwas was an old tenant from much before 16 -6 -54.
(2.) THE learned Munsif, Sawai Madhopur, in whose court the suit was filed, framed a number of issues ard after recording the evidence reached the conclusion: (1) that the rent note Ex. 1 was executed by Ramniwas for Rs. 20/ - per month, (2) the suit premises were not bonafide or reasonably required by the plaintiff, (3) he shop was not in need of repairs, (4) the defendants were defaulters and were consequently liable to eviction, and (5) an amount of Rs. 720/ - was recoverable from the defendants. Accordingly, the learned Munsif passed a decree for ejectment as also for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 720/ - in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Aggrieved by the decree of the learned Munsif the defendants went up in appeal to the. court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gangapur. While the appeal was pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge the Raj. Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 was amended by the Act No. 12 of 1965 and a new Section 13A was inserted in the Act. According to this section a tenant, who was a defaulter, could pay or deposit the arrears of ent with the result that the ground for eviction did not survive. The learned Senior Givil Judge then considered the question as to what was the monthly rent payable by the defendant tenants. He reappraised the evidence led by the parties and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not successful in proving the execution of the rent note Ex. 1 or that the rent fixed was Rs. 20/ - per month. For coming to that conclusion the learned Senior Givil Judge scanned the oral evidence led by the parties and referred to a number of probabilities and on balancing them held that the rent note Ex. 1 was not genuine. So was his conclusion about the genuineness of Ex. 2, a notice said to have been given by Ramniwas to the plaintiff on which reliance was placed by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the learned Senior Civil Judge accepted the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit in toto. He further ordered that the defendants shall be entitled to the refund of an amount of Rs. 2342/ - paid by them on 28.9.65 in pursuance of the order Of the learned Senior Civil Judge or they shall adjust it towards the rent that had accrued so far or would accrue in future at the rate Rs. 11/ - per month.
(3.) IT is in these circumstances that the plaintiff has come in second appeal to this Court.;