JUDGMENT - LAVANDE A.P., J.: - By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgement and decree dated 13-3-1992 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gondia, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1990, allowing the appeal filed by the respondents against the judgment and decree dated 1-1-1990 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Gondia in Regular Civil Suit No. 106/89. 2. The facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are as under : The appellants herein filed the above mentioned suit against the respondents for recovery of arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 49,400/- in respect of the suit house let out to the defendants. The plaintiffs filed the said suit on 15-7-1987. The plaintiffs claimed interest at the rate of Rs. 1.75% p.m. During pendency of the suit, the defendants paid the arrears of rent to the plaintiffs on 21-1-1988. Thereafter, the suit was partly decreed and the trial Court awarded interest @ 6@ p.a. on Rs. 49,550/- from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 15-7-1987 till 21st January, 1988 the date on which the amount towards the arrears of rent was paid to the plaintiffs. In appeal preferred by the defendants, the lower Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the interest inter alia on the ground that the plaintiffs ought to have been aware that they were dealing with the Government Machinery and that it takes long time to get sanction for payment of rent. The Appellate Court thereby reversed the decree passed by the trial Court awarding interest for the said period in favour of the plaintiffs. Against the decree passed by the lower Appellate Court, the present second appeal has been filed by the original plaintiffs. 3. The appeal was admitted on 13-8-1992 and the following order was passed. "Heard Shri Lambat. Admit as the substantial question of law which arises for consideration is whether the appellant was entitled to interest and whether interest could not have been granted at least from the date of the institution of the suit at the rate granted by the trial Court." 4. I have heard Mr. Lambat, learned Counsel for the appellants. Respondents though served have not put in their appearance either personally or through their Counsel. 5. I have heard Mr. Lambat, learned Counsel for the appellants. Respondents though served have not put in their appearance either personally or through their Counsel. 5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellants, the substantial question of law is re-framed as under: "Whether the decree passed by the lower Appellate Court is vitiated on account of non granting of interest from the date of the institution of the suit till the date of payment of rent to the plaintiffs?" 6. Mr. Lambat, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the finding given by the lower Appellate Court that since the plaintiffs were dealing with the Government, they ought to have been aware that it takes some time to get sanction of the amount and on that ground the plaintiffs were not entitled to the interest for the period from filing of the suit till the date of payment of the amount, is contrary to law and is perverse. The learned Counsel further submits that the trial Court was perfectly justified in awarding interest on the amount which was unpaid by the defendants. The learned Counsel further submits that the Appellate Court did not exercise jurisdiction properly in reversing the decree passed by the trial Court and the reason given for reversing the decree is absolutely untenable in law. According to the learned Counsel the Government cannot be given special treatment so as to waive interest on the amount due and payable by the Government. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants I have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the judgment passed by the trial Court. I am in entire agreement with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants. The trial Court awarded interest in favour of the plaintiffs after considering the evidence led in the suit. The trial Court thought it fit to grant interest on the amount due to the plaintiffs by way of rent for the period 15-7-1987 to 21-1-1988 i.e. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of payment of arrears of rent. In my opinion, the trial Court was absolutely justified in awarding interest on the amount towards arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 49,400/-. Although the trial Court would not have granted interest on the amount of Rs. In my opinion, the trial Court was absolutely justified in awarding interest on the amount towards arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 49,400/-. Although the trial Court would not have granted interest on the amount of Rs. 49,550/-, in my opinion, the reasons given by the lower Appellate Court to reverse the decree passed by the trial Court are absolutely untenable in law. Merely because the Government was the tenant that by itself did not exempt the Government from not paying the rent due and in case of any delay in payment of rent, like any other tenant, the Government was liable to pay interest towards the amount outstanding in favour of the plaintiffs. The lower Appellate Court was absolutely not justified in law in giving special treatment to the Government and holding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to interest on the amount due to the plaintiffs. 8. In the result, therefore, the appeal is partly allowed. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellants. The appellants are entitled to the interest @ 6% p.a. on Rs. 49,400/- from 15-7-1987 i.e. the date of filing of the suit till 21-1-1988 i.e. the date of payment of arrears of rent. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs. Decree be drawn accordingly. Appeal allowed. -----