JUDGMENT - G.N. VAIDYA, J.:---The appellant in these three second appeals is the Ahmednagar Borough Municipality. The appeals arise out of three suits filed by the Municipality for recovery of fees for use and occupation of the premises in respect of each of the said suits. 2. Defendant No. 1 in all the three suits was Narayan Tatyaba Yadav who had according to the plaintiff-Municipality constructed structures and let them out for shops to defendant No. 2 in each of the suits. 3. As the facts and circumstances and points involved in the three suits are common, it will be sufficient for purpose of disposing of the above three appeals to state the facts in Regular Civil Suit No. 455 from which Second Appeal No. 697 of 1967 arises. 4. In that case it was alleged by the plaintiff that in 1950, defendant No. 1 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 912 of 1950 against the plaintiff and it was decreed therein that defendant No. 1 should hand over possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff within 12 months. The plaintiff then filed Regular Darkhast No. 582 of 1957 against defendant No. 2 and took symbolical possession of the premises by beat of drum on January 20, 1958. Thereafter, the plaintiff served a notice on March 24, 1958 on defendant No. 2, calling upon him to pay fees at the rate of Re. 1/- per day. 5. Meanwhile defendant No. 1 filed Regular Appeal No. 50 of 1958 against the order in Regular Darkhast No. 582 of 1957. In this appeal plaintiff and defendant No. 1 entered into a compromise to the effect that defendant No. 1 was allowed to take away the structures over the suit lands. The defendant had not taken away the said structures till the present suits were filed. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed to have become the owner of the structures and further claimed rent for use and occupation of the suit premises from defendant No. 1 while the plaintiff claimed from defendant No. 1 the amount received by him from defendant No. 2 for the period after January 20, 1958. 6. The suit was resisted by defendant No. 1. He contended that the decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 912 of 1950 and the order in Regular Darkhast No. 582 of 1957, were without jurisdiction and unenforceable. 6. The suit was resisted by defendant No. 1. He contended that the decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 912 of 1950 and the order in Regular Darkhast No. 582 of 1957, were without jurisdiction and unenforceable. He had filed a Regular Darkhast No. 282 of 1960 against the order in Regular Appeal No. 50 of 1958, and that the structure on the premises still belonged to him. He also contended that he was not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff and the plaintiff was also not entitled to recover arrears from defendant No. 2. 7. Defendant No. 2 also resisted the suit contending that there was no privity of contract between him and the plaintiff, that he was not a party to the prior litigations between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and as such the decisions in those cases were not binding on him. He denied that the plaintiff took possession of the suit premises on January 20, 1958 and that he had received any notice on March 24, 1958 from the plaintiff. He contended that he had deposited rent in Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 141 of 1960 and, hence, he was not bound to pay any fees to the plaintiff. He also contended that the demand of fees at the rate of rupee one per day was unreasonable and that the suit of the plaintiff was time-barred. 8. The trial Court framed as many as eleven issues in view of these contentions and after a careful consideration of the evidence, passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff against defendant No. 2 in the sum of Rs. 1420/- plus proportionate costs. The suit against defendant No. 1 was dismissed. Similarly, decree was passed in other two suits also on the basis of similar pleas, issues and evidence. The Plaintiff-Municipality carried appeals against the said decisions which were all heard together and disposed of by a common judgment dated October 18, 1966 passed by the Assistant Judge, Ahmednagar, confirming the decree passed by the trial Court. The cross-appeal filed by Kondiram Balaji Dhone, respondent in Second Appeal No. 699 of 1967, was also dismissed by the same judgment. 9. It was held by the two courts below that by virtue of the compromise in Civil Appeal No. 1 had already given possession of the suit land and, hence, the plaintiffs suit against him was untenable. The cross-appeal filed by Kondiram Balaji Dhone, respondent in Second Appeal No. 699 of 1967, was also dismissed by the same judgment. 9. It was held by the two courts below that by virtue of the compromise in Civil Appeal No. 1 had already given possession of the suit land and, hence, the plaintiffs suit against him was untenable. It was also found that the proceedings of 1950 and the thereafter, were binding on all the parties to the litigation and by virtue of the said compromised in Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1958, the plaintiff had become the full owner of the suit structures. The trial Court fixed the fees at Rs. 20/- per month having regard to the evidence on the record, including the admission made by the plaintiffs witness that for premises which are small in size, the Municipality was recovering Rs. 20/- per month. The said judgments are challenged in the above three second appeals filed by the Municipality; and the aforesaid Kondiba has filed cross-objections in Second Appeal No. 699 of 1967. The appeal is filed only against original defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 having been deleted in each of the three cases by the lower Appellate Court. 10. Mr. Kotwal, who appears for the Municipality, submitted that the lower courts erred in awarding standard rent at only Rs. 20/- per month. There is no merit in this contention because standard rent must be understood within the meaning of the definition of the said expression under section 5(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, as the rent at which the Municipality first let to defendant No. in 2 each of the cases. Mr. Kotwal also tried to urge that as the structure belonged to the Municipality, defendant No. 2 was not protected under the Rent Act. This argument is against the provisions of section 4(4) of the Bombay Rent Act which says that notwithstanding anything-contained in the said sub-section (1) or in any judgment, decree or order of a Court, the expression "the premises belonging to the Government or a local authority" shall not include a building erected on any land held by any person from the Government or local authority. 11. 11. In the present case it was defendant No. 1 who had built the structure and let out the premises to defendant No. 2 in each of the cases. Therefore, the exemption under section 4(1) cannot apply to the premises in dispute. The two courts below have considered the evidence, relied on the admission made by the plaintiffs witness Shool and held that Rs. 20/- per month is reasonable, fair and standard rent of the premises. The finding cannot, therefore, be challenged by the Municipality in the second appeals as there is no error of law in the said finding. 12. No other point was urged by Mr. Kotwal in support of the second appeals. But Mr. Damle who appears for Kondiram urged in support of the cross-objections filed in Second Appeal No. 1, the decree passed against him must be set aside. The learned Assistant Judge has rightly pointed out that defendant No. 2 Kondiba had not led evidence to show for what period and from what date he had deposited the rent in Court and further the said defendant No. 2 in the suit against him also admitted that he had come to know about the litigation between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 in 1958, when he had received a notice from the Municipality. 13. In these circumstances, both the courts below held that the payments made by defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 1 were not bona fide payments. Although the two courts have not referred to section 50 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is clear that what they in fact held is that the payments made by defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 1 were not payments made bona fide within the meaning of that section; and, therefore, the benefit of the section cannot be extended to him. I find no error in the said finding recorded by the two courts below. It is manifest that defendant No. 2 had not paid the rent to defendant No. 1 or the Municipality from 1958. In these circumstances, he ought to have deposited the amounts in Court instead to paying to defendant No. 1. The contention made by Mr. Damle in support of the cross-objections must therefore, be rejected. 14. In the result, the decree passed by the two courts below are confirmed and all the three second appeals are dismissed with costs. In these circumstances, he ought to have deposited the amounts in Court instead to paying to defendant No. 1. The contention made by Mr. Damle in support of the cross-objections must therefore, be rejected. 14. In the result, the decree passed by the two courts below are confirmed and all the three second appeals are dismissed with costs. The cross-objection filed by the respondent in Second Appeal No. 699 of 1967 are also dismissed with costs. -----