JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated Nov. 2, 1977, of the Civil Judge, Bhilwara, decreeing the plaintiffs suit for declaration and injunction by reversing the judgment and decree of the Munsif, Shahpura, dated April 18,1974, whereby the plaintiffs suit was dismissed. 2. The present case relates to shops Nos. 18 and 19 and the godown belonging to the temple of Shri Brijnandanji Maharaj, at Jahajpur. Auction proceedings for granting the lease of these premises for 1963-64 were held on Oct. 1, 1963. The bid made by the plaintiff Rampal, respondent No. 1, herein, for Rs. 100/- per year, being the highest was accepted by the Tahsildar conducting the proceedings. The Tahsildar obtained a deed of agreement from Rampal for a period of ten years and forwarded the papers for approvals to the Devasthan Commissioner, Udaipur. On Sept. 16,1964, the Tahsildar wrote letter to the plaintiff that the Asstt. Commissioner had accorded his approval for the lease for 11 months at a rent of Rs. 100/- per year. The plaintiff, thus, became a tenant of the premises for 11 months and the rent was agreed as Rs. 100/- per year. Even after the expiry of the period of 11 months the plaintiff was allowed to remain in occupation of the premises. In June 1966, the Devasthan Department, unilaterally re-assessed the rent of the premises and asked the plaintiff to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 386/- per year from April 1, 1966. The plaintiff did not accept this, though he deposited a sum of Rs. 386/- under protest, as he was threatened with coercive measures. On Nov. 15, 1968 the warrant of attachment of the property was also issued. Aggrieved by this the plaintiff filed suit in the court of Munsif, Shahpura, for injunction against the defendants not to evict the plaintiff from the suit premises and to charge from him the agreed rent only. The plaintiff also wanted an adjustment of the amount of Rs. 386/- deposited by him towards the arrears of rent. A written statement contesting the plaintiffs suit was filed by the Tehsildar, Jahajpur. 3. By the judgment dated April 18, 1974, the Munsif, Shahpura, dismissed the plaintiffs suit. On appeal preferred by the plaintiff, the Civil Judge, Bhilwara, by the judgment dated Nov. 2, 1977, set aside the judgment of the learned Munsif and decreed the plaintiffs suit. A written statement contesting the plaintiffs suit was filed by the Tehsildar, Jahajpur. 3. By the judgment dated April 18, 1974, the Munsif, Shahpura, dismissed the plaintiffs suit. On appeal preferred by the plaintiff, the Civil Judge, Bhilwara, by the judgment dated Nov. 2, 1977, set aside the judgment of the learned Munsif and decreed the plaintiffs suit. The defendants were restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property except after following proper legal proceedings. The defendants were also directed to adjust the amount of Rs. 386/- towards the arrears of the rent and the charge from the plaintiff the agreed rent mutually settled between the parties. Dissatisfied with this judgment and decree, the Commissioner, Devasthan has filed the present appeal in this court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned Civil Judge has recorded finding that the suit premises were let out to the plaintiff on a rent of Rs. 100/- per year and that the enhancement in the rate of rent made by the department unilaterally with effect from June 1, 1966, was unauthorised, as it was done without the consent of the plaintiff. The learned Civil Judge further held that the department was not entitled to realise rent from the plaintiff at the enhanced rate of Rs. 386/- per year and that the warrant of attachment issued against the plaintiff was illegal and null and void. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out anything on the record to show that the rent of the premises was enhanced with the consent of the plaintiff. Once an agreed rent was settled by the parties, the same cannot be changed unilaterally. The Devasthan Department had no authority in law to increase the agreed rent unilaterally. There is no error in the judgment of the learned Civil Judge. 5. The result is, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******