JUDGMENT : 1. - This first appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.8.1997 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 4, Jaipur whereby the learned trial court had allowed the recovery of rent along with interest in favour of the plaintiffs against the appellant. 2. House/plot No. B-3, Mahavir Udyan Path, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur, as per the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 Dr. Satish Chandra and respondent No. 2 Smt. Savitri Chandra had been rented out to the appellant Wing Commandar H.K. Lall (Retired) along with fitting and fixtures at the rate of Rs. 2,000/-. p.m. with effect from 1.12.1983. The rent was to be paid by the 10th of to each month. It was alleged that the appellant (here-in-after the tenant) as per his necessity, need and desire had been fixing and re-fixing the windows and other fixtures, furniture's and had been submitting the bills to the respondents (here-in-after called the landlord) for the purpose of refund and payment. It was alleged that the rent had been paid upto 30.6.1985 which was duly acknowledged but the tenant had gone in default after 1.7 1985 and had not paid the rent despite repeated demand. The tenant is said to have been defaulted for more than six months. At the time of filing of the suit, the rent due for 14 months upto 31.8.1986 was to the tune of Rs. 28,000/ to which the landlord plaintiff was entitled to receive. 3. Initially the suit was filed for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement as well on the ground of default, but during the pendency of the suit in June 1993, the property in question was sold to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by a registered sale-deed i.e. to Nikhil Pandit and Mrs. Manjari Pandit. They were impleaded as parties as plaintiffs with the prayer that from the date of purchase they were entitled to receive the rent. The ground for bonafide requirement had, therefore, come to an end so far the original landlord respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were concerned. 4. The appellant tenant had admitted the tenancy from 1.12.1983, but had asserted that the oral rent fixed was Rs. 1000/ p.m. It was denied that 30 the rent was Rs. The ground for bonafide requirement had, therefore, come to an end so far the original landlord respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were concerned. 4. The appellant tenant had admitted the tenancy from 1.12.1983, but had asserted that the oral rent fixed was Rs. 1000/ p.m. It was denied that 30 the rent was Rs. 2000/- p.m. It was further pleaded by the appellant that pervious to the tenancy of the appellant, the premises were under the tenancy of one Somani at the monthly rent of Rs. 550/- p.m. and after the vacation of the house in question by said Somani the property remained vacant and during this period some thief had caused damage to the property in regard to fittings. It was further submitted that the tenant bad to incur the expenses of Rs. 5855/- along with Rs 2100/- as balance of payment of electricity bill of RSEB. It was stated that the rent was due from February 1987 which was not taken by the landlord despite the efforts made by the tenant appellant. Thus, it was pleaded that there was no fault of the appellant. He was always prepared to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- p.m. and is still prepared. It was denied that any rent is due from 1.7.1985 or that any rent of Rs. 28.000i- was recoverable. It was pleaded that this property was to under the tenancy of one Somani from 8.8.1974 to September 1983 at the rate of Rs. 500/- p.m. and, therefore, the basic rent of the said premises could not be more than Rs.550/- . A counter claim was made by the appellant. The counter claim was also denied by the plaintiff. The following issues were framed 1. Whether the rent of Rs. 2000/- per month was agreed for the disputed premises? 2. Whether the defendant has committed any default in paying rent? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovering rental amount of Rs. 28,000/- from the defendants and if yes. then how? 3(a) Whether the disputed premises was given to Shri R.K. Somani on the basis of close relations as a care-taker and whether the amount received was licence fee? 3(b) Whether the defendant is entitled for determination of standard rent of the disputed premises at Rs. 550/-? 28,000/- from the defendants and if yes. then how? 3(a) Whether the disputed premises was given to Shri R.K. Somani on the basis of close relations as a care-taker and whether the amount received was licence fee? 3(b) Whether the defendant is entitled for determination of standard rent of the disputed premises at Rs. 550/-? 3(c) Whether as per para 6 of the specific/additional pleas of written statement of defendant the averments of plaint became false after rejoinder and what will be the effect of the same on the suit? 4. Relief? 5. The plaintiff had produced PW 1 Satish Chandra and PW 2 Gopal Sharrna. The respondent No. 1 produced D.W. 1 H K. Lall and the documentary evidence Ex. 1 to Ex. 13 were produced which included 13 letters sent by the tenant. Ex. 14 to 18 are the acknowledgment receits of the letters. Ex. 19 to 22 are the receipts of the rent and Ex. 23 is the agreement produced by the plaintiff. The respondent had produced Ex. A-1 Affidavit of Shri Somani and A-2 to A-4 are the receipts of rent given by plaintiff No. 1. 6. Issues Nos. 1, 2, 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant and under the relief it was held that the tenant had defaulted in making payment from 1.7.1985 @ Rs. 2000/-. The interim order of fixing of provisional rent of Rs. 1000/- was passed which not had been received by the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit. After adjustment it was ordered that the rent of 145 months upto 31.7.1997 was due and amount of Rs. 1.45,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. i.e. Rs. 52.200/- a total of Rs. 1,97,200/- was due and the plaintiff was entitled to recover the same, out of which rent upto 30.6.1993 to the tune of Rs. 96,000/- as with interest of Rs. 23.000/- a total of Rs. 1,19,000/- was recoverable by the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 and the remaining rent by the plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant tenant had filed the present appeal. 8. It is the contention of the respondents tenant that as per pleadings, it is not denied that so called rent was as a matter of fact Rs. 1000/- and the remaining Rs. 3 and 4. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant tenant had filed the present appeal. 8. It is the contention of the respondents tenant that as per pleadings, it is not denied that so called rent was as a matter of fact Rs. 1000/- and the remaining Rs. 1000/- was for furniture and thus the rent could not be fixed at Rs. 2.000/-. It is further submitted that the re-fixation of the rent should have been made at As 750/- p.m as standard rent. It is further stated that no reliable evidence had been produced by the plaintiff and, therefore, the findings given by the trial court were perverse. The finding on each of the issue had been disputed. 9. The trial court while deciding issue Nos. 1 had relied on the documents produced as Ex. 1 to Ex. 13 which are the hand written letters of the tenant appellant when the rent was paid by the cheque, which documents shall be discussed hereinafter. The trial court had held that the receipts were produced upto June 1985. It was not believable that in case the rent stood paid upto 1.7.1985, the tenant who was very much particular in obtaining the receipts as is clear from the letters written by him, shall pay the rent without receipts. Mostly, the rent had been paid through cheques and in such situation the allegation of the plaintiff about non receipt of the rent could not be disbelieved. 10. The parties may not speak the truth, but the documents do. From the examination of the documents Ex. 1 to Ex. 13 the hand written letters of the plaintiff tenant it has been admitted that the rent was Rs. 2,000/- p.m. The operative part of the document Ex. 1 reads as under - Ex. 1 "I shall be sending a cheque for Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand only) to you against rent of your house for the month of December 1983 in a day or two. From next month, you would receive the cheque by 15th. I am sorry for this delay this month." 11. There is another exhibit letter dated 23.1.1984 which is inadvertantly marked once again as Ex. 1 wherein the rent is admitted as under : "Along with this letter I am enclosing a crossed cheque No. PTH 254516 of Punjab National Bank, M.I. Road, Jaipur, dated 23.1.1984, for Rs. I am sorry for this delay this month." 11. There is another exhibit letter dated 23.1.1984 which is inadvertantly marked once again as Ex. 1 wherein the rent is admitted as under : "Along with this letter I am enclosing a crossed cheque No. PTH 254516 of Punjab National Bank, M.I. Road, Jaipur, dated 23.1.1984, for Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand only) drawn in your name against payment of rent for your house for the month of December 1983. I am sorry for the delay in sending the cheque to you this month. From next month it would reach you by 15th." In Ex. 2 rent of Rs. 2000/- was sent through cheque and it was mentioned in Ex. 2 that house was taken on rent along with fixtures. The bill for reimbursement was also submitted by the tenant. The relevant part reads 35 as under "Along with this letter, I am enclosing a cheque No. 254517 for Rs. 2,000/- as rent for your house for the month of January 1984. As I had promised, I shall keep sending the rent to you by cheque by tenth of every month." "As you may by aware of, before we had taken your house on rent, some fans, regulators and electric fittings were stolen from your house. Only one fan was left that too. because it was found to be very old and absolutely unserviceable. That fan has been repaired and fitted back. Besides, four more ceiling fans were bought & fitted only at those places where fans had been fitted earlier." Ex. 3 is a letter written by the tenant respondent dated 9.7.1984 which reads as under : "On January 23, 1984, I had sent a crossed cheque No. 254516 for Rs. 2,000/- to you as rent. Again, on 6.2.1984, I had sent a crossed cheque No. 254517 for Rs. 2.000/- as rent. You have already received Rs. 11,995/- (Rs. Eleven Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Five) by February, 1984. This amount is adjusted against rent for December, 1983, January, February, March, April & May, 1984. I have been anxiously waiting for official receipts for these months since long. I had to submit these receipts along with my Income tax return. Kindly do send these stamped receipts immediately.- "Along with this letter, I am enclosing a crossed cheque No. 254520 of PNB, M.I. Road. Jaipur dated 9.7.1984, for Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. I have been anxiously waiting for official receipts for these months since long. I had to submit these receipts along with my Income tax return. Kindly do send these stamped receipts immediately.- "Along with this letter, I am enclosing a crossed cheque No. 254520 of PNB, M.I. Road. Jaipur dated 9.7.1984, for Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand only) against rent of your house for the month of June, 1984. Till date. your rent is paid by me well in time No rent had ever been in arears.- Ex. 4 is the letter dated 10.9.1984, relevant part of which reads as under : "Along with this letter I am enclosing a crossed cheque No. 254522 of PNB, M.I. Road, Jaipur dated 10.9.1984 for Rs. 2,000-/ (Rs. Two thousand only) in the name of your father, against the rent of your house for the month of August, 1984." Ex. 5 is the letter dated 8.10.1984. relevant part of which reads as under "Along with this letter, I am enclosing a crossed cheque of Punjab National Bank, M.I. Road. Jaipur No PTH 254523 dated 8.10.1984, for Rs. 2,000.00 only (Rs. Two Thousand only) as rent of your house for the month of September, 1984." Ex. 6 is a letter dated 9.11.1984, relevant part of which reads as under "Along with this letter I am enclosing a crossed cheque No. PTH 254524 dated 9.11.1984 for two Thousand rupees, in your name, as rent of your house for the month of October. 1984. Please send me a stamped receipt for the same. As you know, I need these receipts for my Income-Tax purposes." In the above Ex. 6, two separate receipts were handed over to the appellant for two months of Rs. 1,000/- each i.e. Rs. 1,000/- for rent and Rs. 1,000/- for fixtures. The appellant had protested and asked the respondent to send the correct receipts. He had stated that he need only monthly rent receipts of Rs. 2.000/- p.m. by saying as under : "I do need only monthly rent receipt. And therefore, please send me a correct rent receipt for the months of December, 1983 to September, 1984. Ex. 7 is the letter dated 10.12.1984 relevant portion of which reads as under "Along with this letter I am enclosing a crossed cheque No. 254526 for Rs. 2,000/- only (Rs. And therefore, please send me a correct rent receipt for the months of December, 1983 to September, 1984. Ex. 7 is the letter dated 10.12.1984 relevant portion of which reads as under "Along with this letter I am enclosing a crossed cheque No. 254526 for Rs. 2,000/- only (Rs. Two thousand only) as rent of your house for the month of November, 1984.' Similar is the receipt letter Ex. 8 dated 10.1.1985.Ex. 9 dated 15.2.1985 relevant portion of which reads as under : "Along with this letter I am enclosing a crossed cheque in your name for Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as rent of your house for the month of January 1985. Please do send me a stamped official receipt for this amount as monthly rent of your house. I have to submit all these house rent receipts to my employers and income-tax authorities." 12. Ex. 10 is the important letter showing that the fan was changed and a bill in original for replacing the fan was sent to the respondent landlord after deducting the price of the fan of Rs. 884/- and other expenses of Rs. 547/-and a cheque of As. 569/- was enclosed with the letter. The relevant part reads as under "This amount of Rs. 1,431/- is deducted from the rent of February 1985. A cheque for Rs. 569/- is enclosed." Ex. 11 letter dated 14.4.1985 reads as under : "Along with this letter I am enclosing a crossed cheque No. 254532 dated 10.4.1985, for Rs. 2,000/- in your name, as rent of your house for the month of March 1985. Please do send me a stamped official receipt for the same."Ex. 12 is the letter dated 23.5.1985, relevant portion of which reads as under "Along with this letter, I am enclosing a crossed cheque in your name for Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. Two thousand only) against rent of your house for the month of April 1985." Ex. 13 is the letter dated 15.7.1985, the relevant portion of which reads as under- "A separate cheque No. PTH 254536, dated 15.7.85 is also enclosed along with this letter, as rent of your house for the month of June 1985. This cheque is of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. two thousand only)." 13. From the above said documents which are hand written of the appellant himself it is very clear that the appellant was through-out submitting the cheque of Rs. This cheque is of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. two thousand only)." 13. From the above said documents which are hand written of the appellant himself it is very clear that the appellant was through-out submitting the cheque of Rs. 2,000/- towards for each and very month upto June 1985. It cannot be doubted that the rent was Rs. 2,000/- and it was so riot only accepted by the tenant. but also was pressed by the appellant when the landlord had issued separate receipts of Rs. 1,000/- towards rent from December 1983 to September 1984 and similarly for the remaining rent for the fixtures. From the letters of the appellant tenant it is very clear that the rent through-out including that of the fixtures was Rs. 2,000/- p.m. There may be reasons for the landlord for bifurcating of rent of As. 1,000/- towards rent and Rs. 1,000/- for fixtures for the purpose of income-tax or otherwise. but it is settled law that the appellant tenant is bound and is estopped because of his own conduct or in face of the clear documents Ex. 1 to Ex. 13 whereby categorically and in clear terms the appellant had been issuing receipts of the rent @ 2,000/- p.m. the appellant's contention is that the rent was only Rs. 1,000/- cannot be accepted. 14. In regard to issue to the effect whether Shri Somani was paying the rent of Rs. 550/- for the tenancy of the present premises, except the affidavit of Shri Somani. nothing else has been produced on record. Even otherwise, it is not clear whether Shri Somani had been in occupation of the whole of the premises in question or part of the premises or with fixtures or without fixtures. In my opinion, no fault can be found with the findings of the trial court in this regard. 15. Counsel for the appellant relies on the authorities reported in 1997(1) RCJ (SC) 559 Radha Kishan Sao v. Gopal Modi & Others wherein it was held that any alteration of the fair rent fixed by the rent Controller either by improvement of the building or by addition of furniture to the building will have to receive the imprimature of the Rent Controller. In that case fair rent as had been fixed for the rent controller and after fixing of rent there was default of payment of rent agreed by the defendant subsequent to the lease. It was held that no enhancement of the fair rent is legally permissible except in accordance with the provisions of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. 1947. The facts of the case of R.K. Sao are distinguishable from so the facts of the present case. 16. In another case of Chhote Lal v. Kewal Krishan Mehta, 1971 RCJ 439 , the Supreme Court had held that where electric charges are not fixed and can only be ascertained at the end of each month after the electricity consumed, such charges cannot be held to form part of rent. 17. The above case of Chhote lal is distinguishable in the facts of the present case. 18. Similar is the effect of another case relied by the petitioner in Shiv Shanker v. Sanwal Singh, 1963 RLW 105 and Mali Bi v. F. Mohammed Ibrahim, 1975 RCJ 219 . In that case it was held that if certain sums as hire or premium are agreed upon between the lessor and lessee in respect of amenities, inclusive of electrical installations, then all such payments shall be construed as part of 'rent' payable by a lessee. But in the case where landlord was seeking recoverable amount due and payable by public authority concerned on account of consumption of water and electricity, the said amount could not be brought within the definition of the rent. 19. Counsel for the petitioner also relies on Uttamchand v. S.N. Lalwani, AIR 1965 SC 716 but the facts in the above case are not applicable to the present case. That was a case of the fact whether machine was under lease or building was under lease. 20. The petitioner also relies on a judgment of this Court Mohd. Aslam v. Smt. Parvati Devi & Ors., 1993(2) WLN 467 , which is a case of fixation of provisional rent against such tenant. It has been held that the land lady is not landlord to the sub-tenant and does not claim right of recovery of rent and it was held that no order determining the provisional rent can be passed against sub-tenant. The facts in Mohd. Aslam's case are not relevant for the purpose of the present case. It has been held that the land lady is not landlord to the sub-tenant and does not claim right of recovery of rent and it was held that no order determining the provisional rent can be passed against sub-tenant. The facts in Mohd. Aslam's case are not relevant for the purpose of the present case. 21. On the other hand counsel for the respondent submits that the definition of premises as defined in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. Prem Kumar, 1996 DNJ (Raj.) 680 to the fact that the definition of the premises defined under Section 3(b) of the Act means any land not being used for agricultural purposes and any building or part of a building other than a farm building let or intended to be let for use as a residence or for commercial use or for any other purpose, including the gardens, grounds, godowns, garages and out houses, if any appurtenant to such building or part and any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building. 22. In Karnani Properties Ltd. v. Miss Augustine and others, AIR 1957 SC 309 it was held that the term 'rent' is comprehensive enough to include all payments agreed by the tenant to be paid to his landlord for the use and occupation, not only of the building and its appurtenances but also of furnishings, electric installations and other amenities agreed between the parties to be provided by and at the cost of the landlord. 23. In Pranab Ganguly v. Shambaza land & Estate Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1981 Cal. 345 , it was held that the rent includes also any extra amount agreed to be paid for the occupation and enjoyment of the tenancy. In that case monthly lift charges were paid separately. 24. The respondent also relies on a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Issac Ninan v. State of Kerala, wherein the provisions in regard to fixation of fair rent and building were held to be ultravires the Constitution. 25. Yet in another judgment of this Court in Firm Khetsi Dass Sheoji Ram, Sardarshahar & Ors. v. Mohani Devi & Anr., 1994(2) WIN 126 wherein it was held that galloping increase in prices and value of rupee was eroding fast and, therefore, fixation of rate of rent far from real state of affairs was not proper. 26. 25. Yet in another judgment of this Court in Firm Khetsi Dass Sheoji Ram, Sardarshahar & Ors. v. Mohani Devi & Anr., 1994(2) WIN 126 wherein it was held that galloping increase in prices and value of rupee was eroding fast and, therefore, fixation of rate of rent far from real state of affairs was not proper. 26. The Supreme Court in Malpe Vishwanath Acharya and others v. State of Maharashtra and another, AIR 1998 SC 602 has held that the provisions of pegging it down to rent paid i.e. first rent paid for premises let out are no longer reasonable and such provisions are arbitrary and un-reasonable. 27. However, in the present case, for the reasons from the very first day, the appellant had been paying the monthly rent at Rs. 2,000/- p.m. and sending the same by cheque and also for the documentary evidence produced on record to the effect that fittings, fixtures and furnitures were included in rent of Rs. 2,000/- p.m. It is fore-gone conclusion rightly arrived by the trial court that the rent was Rs. 2,000/- p.m. 28. No interference is called for in the order of the trial court in view of the above discussion and documentary evidence as opined earlier and the first appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs and the order of the trial court is maintainedFirst Appeal Dismissed-Order of Trial Court Maintained. *******