This is a defendants second appeal against the appellate judgment and decree of the Additional Commissioner Jaipur dated 28.7.59 in a suit for arrears of rent. The plaintiffs in this case sued the defendants i.e. the appellants for a sum of Rs. 1025/- being the price of 65 maunds of grain outstanding against the defendants for the Smt. year 2003 and Smt. 2004. The claim of the plaintiff was based on an Ijaranama Ex. P. I purported to have been executed by defendant Ramla on his own behalf as well as other. The rent stipulated in the Ijaranama was 130 maunds grain in Kham equivalent to 65 maunds pucca including wheat 25 maunds, barley 65 maunds for the rabi crop and 40 maunds of Bajra for the Kharif. It was further alleged that the stipulated rent had remained unpaid, therefore the suit for its recovery. The suit was filed in the year 1947 under the relevant provisions of the Jaipur Tenancy Act. Two separate written statements were filed by each of the defendant sued i.e. by Ramla as well as Gopi. Both of them denied the plaint allegations, particularly the execution of Ex. P. 2 but in further particulars admitted that for the land in dispute the defendant had been paying to the plaintiffs the assessed rent as well as a sum of Rs. 30/- in addition because the Kothi, i.e. the well was sunk at the expenses of the plaintiffs. On the above allegations of the parties the trial Court framed two issues, namely (1) whether the document Ex. P. 1 had been executed by Ramla on his own behalf and as well as on behalf of the others and was binding on the defendants, and (2) whether grain rents valued at Rs. 1025/- were due to the plaintiffs from the defendants. At the conclusion of the Court found issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs but on issue No. 2 it came to the conclusion that though the proceedings commenced under the provisions of the Jaipur Tenancy Act as they were pending when the Rajasthan Tenancy Act came into force, they were to be decided and determined in accordance with the provisions of the latter Act. The trial Court, therefore proceeded to fix the quantum of rent in accordance with the provisions of the latter Act and purporting to act under Sec.99 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act decreed the rent in favour of the plaintiffs at twice the rent found to be assessed i.e. Rs. 118.5.0. Thus the decree was passed for a sum of Rs. 236.10.0. Aggrieved by this order the defendants went up in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner, who confirmed the findings of the Court below by his impugned order and dismissed the appeal. The first contention of Shri Kudal, counsel for the appellant on which a great deal of emphasis was laid is that both the courts below have erred in placing reliance on Ex.P.1 because it was a document which had not been proved properly and no decree could have been passed on the basis of this document. The error committed by both the Courts is a grievous one and is on a point of law and therefore the concurrent decision of the court below could be challenged before this Court. His next contention was that sec.99 had been wrongly applied in the case and this is also an error of law. It was also argued that the trial Court had not framed the issues properly and that this issue was not within the jurisdiction of the trial Court. Before we proceed to examine these contentions, we would like to state in general what is the proper approach for the Courts dealing with a rent suit. The first question which arises for determination in a rent suit is whether the relation ship of landlord and tenant subsists between the parties. The next issue to be considered is whether in the event of the reply to the above issue being in the affirmative, there has been a default" non-payment of rent by the defendant and the next point therefore would be to fix the quantum of the rent. If the rent is agreed upon the Court will have no difficulty in passing a decree for the amount found to be agreed but if the rent is not agreed upon, a further duty is cast on the Court to fix a rent which is equitable and fair. If the rent is agreed upon the Court will have no difficulty in passing a decree for the amount found to be agreed but if the rent is not agreed upon, a further duty is cast on the Court to fix a rent which is equitable and fair. Examined in this light, we find in this case that the relationship of a landlord and a tenant did subsist between the plaintiff and the defendants. Even if we exclude Ex. P.1 from evidence the defendants written statement is a conclusive admission on their behalf that they were paying rent in the past to the plaintiffs the assessed rent plus Rs. 30/- in addition as the well in dispute was constructed at the expenses of the plaintiffs. In view of this admission in the written statement, in fact it was not necessary for the Courts below to investigate Ex. P. 1 from the point or view of establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant between them. As regards the quantum of rent, this document has not been believed by both the Courts below as they have not decreed the rent in terms of this document. The Courts below had made an attempt to decree a proper and legal rent. We, therefore, find that it is hardly relevant for a proper decision of this case to investigate the existence or non-existence of Ex. P. 1. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the rent is due to the plaintiffs by the defendants and the defendants were prepared to pay the plaintiff if he cared to accept the assessed rent plus Rs. 30/- in addition to that. Now, therefore, we have to examine whether the Courts below were correct in applying sec. 99 in this case. Sec. 99 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act runs as follows:— "In areas where rent has been settled and sub-tenants pay rent in cash, the maximum rent recoverable by a tenant from his sub-tenant shall be prescribed by the State Government so that it does not exceed twice the amount payable by such tenant." Now, this section by itself requires the State Government to prescribe maximum rent in areas where rent has been settled. It appears that the land in dispute was situated in an area where the rent had been settled and therefore it was the duty of the State Government to prescribe the maximum rent but it does not follow from this provision of law that where maximum rent is prescribed under this section by the State Government the Courts in each and every case must decree the maximum rent. Another implication of sec. 99 which appears to have been altogether missed by the Courts below is that the maximum limit may be upto the double of the assessed rent but it could be lower than that also. It, therefore, follows that the manner in which this provision of law has been applied by the Courts below is tantamount to misdirecting themselves as to the nature and purpose of the law. In other words, this section is no basis for decreeing rents upto the double of the assessed rent in all suits for arrears of rent. However one thing is clear that if the Courts decree upto the double of the assessed rent, it would not be an illegal order. This would still be remaining within prescribed limits and looking to the circumstances of the case that the defendants themselves were prepared to pay Rs. 30/- in addition to the assessed rent, it would not be correct to say that it was not possible in this case to have fixed the rent at twice the amount of "assessed rent." Another circumstance which we have to bear in mind is that the litigation was started somewhere in 1947 and by now is 15 years old. If we accept this appeal solely on the ground that the quantity of the rent has not been fixed on the basis of the rent being fair and equitable we will be giving another lease of life to this old litigation and we do not envisage any benefit even to the defendants if we remand the case back for the re-trial of issue No. 2, because the rent in any case is to be higher than the assessed rent; at least Rs. 30/- in addition to the assessed rent in view of the defendants clear admission. From the above discussion we find that there is no force in this appeal and we dismiss it accordingly leaving the parties to bear their own costs.