Case: Girdhari Lal (Dead) By Lrs Vs. Hukam Singh and Others

2. The plaintiff, who is a Receiver of a property known as Nabbu building, appointed specifically for realising rent from tenants of the building, sued the defendant for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1, 31, 266 at the allegedly agreed rate of rent of Rs. 1, 700 per month. In the alternative, the plaintiff prayed that a decree may be awarded at the rate of Rs. 1, 000 per month in accordance with the orders of the Deputy Custodian, Jodhpur, who, it seems, had fixed that amount provisionally when litigation with regard to the property was going on the assumption, subsequently found to be erroneous, that the owner of it was an evacuee. Again, in the alternative, the plaintiff Receiver, who was, quite understandably, not certain of the exact position, had asked for a fixation of standard rent, under the provisions of Section 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rend and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in case no rent was found to be either agreed upon or settled. Furthermore, the plaintiff had prayed for the fixation of provisional rent to be paid during the pendency of the suit, "and, in case it is not paid, the defendant be ordered to vacate the premises". The defendant had pleaded, inter alia, that proper Court fee should have been paid for relief by way of eviction of defendant from the premises, which had been taken on rent for the purposes of running a hotel called the "Grand Hotel" at Jodhpur. The defendant had also denied the jurisdiction of the Court of the Civil Judge, where the suit was filed, to fix standard rent. He had objected to the competence of the Receiver to sue on the ground that he had not been appointed to realise the rent. There was an objection also to the frame of the suit by misjoinder of causes of action in suing for arrears of rent as well as for fixation of a standard rent. There was contest also on demands for various expenses alleged by the defendant to have been incurred by him over items such as making of certain constructions or payments to the Custodian or to the landlord.      3. The Civil Judge,g technical objections, had passed a decree for Rs. 42, 797.50 as arrears of rent, after fixing Rs. 782 per month as the standard rent of the premises. The arrears of rent were payable in installments of Rs. 5, 000 every two months, beginning from June 1, 1961, with interest at 6% per annum in case of default. The suit for the remaining remaining reliefs claimed had been dismissed with proportionate costs.

Court's reasoning:
5. The High Court had, in our opinion rightly, overruled the objection that a decree for rent or mense profits during the pendency of the suit could not be granted under Order 20, Rule 12 Civil Procedure Code in this case. The defendant had himself pleaded here that the suit was for ejectment on which the additional Court fee had to be paid. The High Court pointed out that the plaintiff had paid the additional Court fee for a suit for ejectment. Hence, it held that it was not open to the defendant to object to the award of mense profits on the ground that there was no suit for ejectment before the Court. This was, we think, quite a frivolous objection6. The questions raised before the High Court have beend before us. We have been taken through the evidence which, according to the learned for the, did not justify the finding that the agreed rent was Rs. 1, 250. After having examined this evidence, we think that the High Court was correct in inferring at least a willingness on the part of Girdhari Lal, respondent, to pay Rs. 1, 250 per month as rent. The High Court had not only given the finding that this was an agreed rent, but it had held, rightly in our opinion, that this must also be found to be the basic rent under the first proviso to Section 6(2) of the Act as it was applied to cases where the first letting out was after January 1, 19469. An objection based upon the proviso to Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act was, we think rightly, disposed of by the High Court as follows: The next objection is that under the proviso to Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer. In our opinion he is ordinarily not so entitled unless there is a contract to the contrary. There was an express contract to the contrary contained in the compromise petition which was incorporated in the compromise decree passed by the Court10. As regards the objection that the terms of the compromise operated as a transfer which required a registered deed for its enforcement, the High Court found that it was a sufficient answer to it that the terms were embodied in a compromise decree. The terms of the compromise did not provide for the execution of any deed of transfer. We were taken through the compromise decree by learned Councel for the appellant. Even though the decree of a Court embodies an agreement between the parties, we do not think that the agreement between the parties placed before us, involving the recognition of a transfer, could require registration unless the terms of the compromise decree necessarily involved the execution of a deed of conveyance also. We, therefore, reject this ground of objection also pressed before us vehemently for acceptance by learned Counsel for the appellant.