J.P.JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit instituted by Ghisa Ram, plaintiff, in the court of Munsiff City Ajmer against Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava and Tej Kumur Bhargava on 13 -11 -62. There is a property with huge compound situate at Srinagar Road, Ajmer. That belonged to one Sooraj Prakash Bhargava. The entire property was leased out to two defendants Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava and Tej Kumar Bhargava by him. On the west of the property Nawal Kishore Press is located. Towards the East is the residence of the manager of the press. In between these two properties the plaintiff Ghisa Ram purchased two plots of land 'C' and 'D' measuring 803,61 Sq Yds. from the owner of this property by a sale -deed dated 29 -7 -69. According to the plaintiff he became the owner of the two plots from that date and the defendants namely Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava and Tej Kumr Bhargava became his tenants. No rent for this portion of the demised premises was apportioned by the parties to the sale and the tenants. The plaintiff, however claimed Rs. 30/ - per month by way of rest from 29.7.69 and thus prayed for a decree for Rs. 810/ for the peried from 29.7.59 to 31.10.61. He also prayed for eviction of the suit land as he required it for his personal necessity. He served the notice to the defendants terminating their tenancy from 31.10.61.
(2.) THIS suit was resisted by the two defendant -tenants. They admitted that they are the tenants of Sooraj Prakash Bhargava on the entire property. They also admitted the sale but it was pleaded by them that the sale by itself did not have the effect of bifurcating the tenancy as it was one and indivisible They also contested ths plaintiff's right to claim Rs. 30/ - per month by way of rent for the land purchased by him. An objection was also raised that the suit was bad for non joinder of Sooraj Prakash Bhargava. The learned Munsif by his order dated 12.7.62 framed six issue Issue No. 5 related if the suit was bad for non -joinder ot Sooraj Prakash. This issue was decided on 22 -12 -62 and it was held that Sooraj Prakash was a necessary party. As result, the plaintiff amended the suit and made Sooraj Prakash as defendant No. 3. Sooraj Prakash did not out in appearance. Learned Muniff by his order dated 20 -4 -63 decreed the plaintiff's suit and granted him a decree. HE held him entitled to mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 15/ -per month. On appeal the Civil Judge, Ajmer set aside the decree, framed a fresh issue and sent the case back for reterial vide his order dated 14.4.64. The newly framed issue was: What should be the apportionment of the rent for the suit land out or total amount of rent payable by the defendant -tenants to the original Landlord Sooraj Prakash?
(3.) THIS order was challenged in revision but before the revision could be decided the case was retried and decided by the trial Judge on 30 -10 -64. This court, in the circumstances, declined to interfere in revision. By this decree of Munsiff the suit for ejectment was dismissed and a decree for arrears of reant was awarded against the defendants at the rate of Rs. 10/ - per month. This decree was again challenged in appeal but. without any success. It is dated 16th February, 1966. It is this decree that has been challenged in second appeal.;