- (1.) The above captioned two appeals arise from the judgment and decree dated 04.02.2019, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shahpura, District Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Court") in Civil Appeal No.1/2017 vide which the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2016, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Shahpura, Bhilwara in Civil Suit No.72/2013 (93/2003) has been affirmed. By the same impugned judgment dated 04.02.2019, the Appellate Court has also allowed the cross- objections filed by the plaintiffs qua the findings in relation to issues No.4 and 5.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the present appeal lie in a narrow compass, which are set out hereunder:- 2.1 Propositus of respondents No.1 to 4 - Shatrushal Singh Dangi, the original plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession against the appellant-defendant No.2 and propositus of defendant No.1 (respondents No.5 to 11 herein), inter-alia, indicating that he had let out a shop to defendant No.1 Sita Ram on 30.03.1981 for a monthly rent @ Rs.80/-, in pursuance whereof, the plaintiff had written a rent note in favour of defendant No.1. 2.2 When the defendant No.1 Sita Ram grew old, defendant No.2 Ramesh Chandra (appellant herein) also joined the defendant No.1 in his business and subsequent thereto, started paying rent @ Rs.100/- per month to the plaintiff. 2.3 The plaintiff gave 15 days' notice dated 21.04.2003 to the defendants and terminated their tenancy, however, giving an alternative option to pay increased rent @ Rs.1,000/- per month, if they wanted their tenancy to continue. 2.4 It is not in dispute that despite receiving the notice dated 21.04.2003 on 23.04.2003, the defendants had neither handed over the possession of the shop in question nor had they increased the rent to Rs.1,000/- per month, as claimed by the plaintiff. 2.5 The plaintiff thus filed a suit for recovery of possession, which was registered as Civil Original Suit No.93/2003 (New No.72/2013). 2.6 The defendants filed a written statement and while accepting the tenancy, contended that the plaintiff is having 5-7 shops in Shahpura itself and he is not in requirement of the shop. It was also alleged that the suit in question was essentially for getting the rent increased and not for eviction. While denying the plaintiff's right for getting the rent @ Rs.1,000/- after 31.05.2003, the defendants requested to dismiss the suit. 2.7 On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues came to be framed by the learned Trial Court:- 2.8 The learned Trial Court vide order dated 23.11.2016 decided the issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and found that as a result of service of 15 days' notice dated 21.04.2003, the tenancy of the defendants came to an end on 31.05.2003. The learned Trial Court decided issue No.2 partially against the defendants and held that the plaintiff was justified in terminating the tenancy after issuing requisite statutory notice. Issue No.3 was decided against the defendants by holding that the fact that the plaintiff was having other shops does not preclude him from seeking recovery of possession of the shop in question. Issues No.4 and 5 were however decided against the plaintiff, yet in wake of finding of issues No.1, 2 and 3, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed and the defendants were directed to hand over peaceful vacant possession of the shop in question to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was held entitled to mesne profit @ Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of decree till the recovery of possession. 2.9 Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and decree aforesaid, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, which was registered as Civil Appeal No.1/2017. 2.10 On receipt of notice of the appeal, the plaintiffs (respondents No.1 to 4 herein) filed cross-objection chellenging the adjudication of issues No.4 and 5, inter-alia, contending that they were entitled for recovery of amount of rent calculated @ Rs.1,000/- per month from 31.05.2003; the date when the tenancy was terminated. 2.11 The Appellate Court after appreciating the evidence on record not only affirmed the findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court qua issues No.1 to 3 but also decided issue No.4 in plaintiff's favour. The cross-objection filed by the respondents No.1 to 4 came to be allowed partly. 2.12 The Appellate Court while affirming the decree with respect to recovery of possession, held the plaintiff entitled for a sum of Rs.500/- per month as mesne profit w.e.f. 31.05.2003 till the date of decree while also holding them entitled for a sum of Rs.1,000/- as mesne profit from the date of decree of the Trial Court till 30.09.2017; and further for a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month from 01.10.2017 till the recovery of possession as mesne profit.
(3.) Laying challenge to the judgment and decree dated 04.02.2019, passed by the Appellate Court, the appellant has preferred these two separate appeals. The first one (Civil Second Appeal No.78/2019) is against the confirmation of the decree of the Trial Court, whereas the second one (Civil Second Appeal No.83/2019) has been preferred against the modification of the decree as aforesaid in wake of the finding recorded in relation to issue No.4.;