JUDGMENT : Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. Instant first appeal is directed against judgment & decree dt 5.8.1996 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 2. Brief facts noticed are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,20,000/- against the defendants, claiming herself to be the owner of premises described in para No. 1 of the plaint, known as "SRI NIWAS" situated at Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur. It is claimed that the defendants took the premises on rent from the appellant and a lease agreement was executed on 30.9.1986 to the effect that the premises was being taken on rent @ Rs. 5000/- per month for a period of five years. It was also agreed that the tenants will have no objection regarding increase in rent as per the norms fixed by the Central Public Works Department. It was then claimed in the plaint that vide letter dt 11.7.1991 the plaintiff informed defendant No. 2 that if the premises is to be retained by them further, then valuation may be got done before expiry of the lease period i.e. before September 1991, upon which defendant No. 3 enquired from the Jaipur Development Authority about the prevailing rate of rent per sq.yrd, upon which vide letter dt 7.10.1991 the JDA informed that the market rate per sq.yrd is Rs. 3600/- and the Executive Engineer (DW.1) re-valued the rent of "SRI NIWAS" and assessed in between Rs. 11195/- to Rs. 14396/-. Thereafter defendant No. 3 informed that the premises will be vacated on 30.6.1993. Defendants were paying rent @ Rs. 5000/- per month whereas the plaintiff claimed to be entitled to receive rent at the rate in between Rs. 11195/- to Rs. 14396/- for the period from 1.10.1991 to 30.6.1993 and, therefore, filed suit for recovery of Rs. 2,20,000/- from the defendants inclusive of future interest i.e. Rs. 22684/-. 3. The defendants in their written statement admitted the fact of taking the aforesaid premises on rent initially @ Rs. 5000/- per month, however, denied the claim of plaintiff that the rent was re-valued before expiry of the lease agreement to be paid @ between Rs. 11195/- to Rs. 14396/- per month and claimed that the plaintiff is not entitled to rent as claimed in the plaint. The defendants further claimed in their written statement that upto 31.8.1992, the rent was agreed to be paid @ Rs. 11195/- to Rs. 14396/- per month and claimed that the plaintiff is not entitled to rent as claimed in the plaint. The defendants further claimed in their written statement that upto 31.8.1992, the rent was agreed to be paid @ Rs. 5915/- per month and thereafter the rent was increased to Rs. 6547/- per month vide letter dt 19.8.1991 for the period from 1.9.1992 to 31.8.1997. The defendants also claimed that the trial court had no jurisdiction insofar as financial claims are concerned. 4. On the basis of pleadings of both parties, the trial court initially framed 6 issues including the issue of relief, but on 19.12.1995 issue nos. 4 & 5 were deleted and framed 5 issues afresh. 5. In support of the plaint, plaintiff got herself examined as PW.1 and in support of the claim of defendants, DW.1 Ajay Prakash was produced. After hearing the parties and taking into consideration the evidence produced, learned trial court partly decreed the suit of plaintiff entitling her to receive Rs. 25485/- from the defendants by increasing rent @ Rs. 915/- per month for the period from 1.10.1991 to 31.8.1992 and Rs. 1542/- per month from 1.9.1992 to 30.6.1993 and entitled her also to receive interest @ 6% on the said amount from 27.11.1993 till realisation of the amount. The trial court also awarded litigation expenses (including the fees of advocate) upto the limit of Rs. 25,485/- to the plaintiff and dismissed rest of the claim in the suit. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment & decree of the trial court, the plaintiff preferred this first appeal with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned judgment & decree so far it relates to the rejection of the plaint. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial court has not considered the evidence and documents placed on record in proper perspective while deciding the main issues and contended that CPWD/JDA as per norms laid, had opined rent of the property between Rs. 11195/- to 14396/-, therefore, rightful claim has been disbelieved for no reason and thus the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court needs to be interfered with so far it relates to the rejection of the plaint. 8. 11195/- to 14396/-, therefore, rightful claim has been disbelieved for no reason and thus the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court needs to be interfered with so far it relates to the rejection of the plaint. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment and decree passed by trial court contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff failed to prove the documents relied upon by the trial court, and contended that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court needs no interference by this court. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents placed on record and the impugned judgment and decree. 10. The trial court while deciding issue No. 1 came to the conclusion that since no document/agreement has been placed on record to support the pleading of plaintiff that the defendants agreed to pay rent as revalued by CPWD, and in the lease deed it was agreed by the parties that in the event of any dispute regarding rent, the same would be referred to an Arbitrator, therefore, in my view, no interference by this court in arriving the conclusion by the trial court is warranted. 11. Even otherwise it is a case where the earlier contract came to an end and no fresh agreement was entered into by and between the parties, therefore, the right of appellant did not accrue. It is also an admitted fact that though civil suit was filed in limitation but much after the premises were vacated by the respondent department. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondent brought to the notice of court that even subsequent to the premises being vacated by the respondents, still the appellant gave on rent/let out to some Govt. department @ Rs. 5000/- only, whereas the trial court has allowed much more than Rs. 5000/- in the impugned order, to which learned counsel for appellant was unable to contradict or to say anything in this regard. 12. Issue No. 3 has also rightly been decided by the trial court against the plaintiff as the documents produced by the defendants, namely Exh. 5000/- only, whereas the trial court has allowed much more than Rs. 5000/- in the impugned order, to which learned counsel for appellant was unable to contradict or to say anything in this regard. 12. Issue No. 3 has also rightly been decided by the trial court against the plaintiff as the documents produced by the defendants, namely Exh. 15 and 16 were not found to be disbelieved by the trial court while analysing the evidence of DW.1, and the trial court has rightly decided this issue against the plaintiff holding that if plaintiff was aggrieved with the documents (Exh.15 & 16) she ought to have approached the defendants, which she has not done and, therefore, this court concurs with the finding arrived at by the trial court in this regard. 13. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced and on perusal of the impugned judgment and decree, I am of the view that the trial court has rightly decided the suit in part and no perversity or illegality can be said to have caused by the trial court in deciding the suit. 14. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed.