JUDGMENT : All these three appeals have been filed by the same appellant who was the plaintiff in O.S.No.28/1999 and O.S.No.178/2000, both filed by him in the Court of Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Arasikere, (henceforth for brevity referred to as “the trial Court”). Both the suits were filed by him for recovery of arrears of rent from the defendant therein, who is the same respondent in all these three appeals, for two different periods. O.S.No.28/1999 was decreed by the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 8.6.2001, for a sum of Rs.10,011/, together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. thereupon payable by the defendant to the plaintiff therein. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant therein preferred an appeal in R.A.No.76/2001 and the plaintiff preferred an appeal in R.A.No.83/2001, in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Arasikere (henceforth for brevity referred to as `the First Appellate Court). The said Court by its common judgment and decree dated 20.4.2006, partly allowed R.A.No.76/2001, modifying the judgment and decree of the trial Court under appeal, confining it to a sum of Rs.1,340/and dismissed R.A.No.83/2001. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff has preferred the Second Appeal in RSA.No.2416/2006 before this Court. 2. Original Suit in O.S.No.178/2000 was decreed by the trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 17.11.2003, holding the plaintiff as entitled to recover the arrears of rent at a sum of Rs.26,276/, together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a., from the defendant. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in R.A.No.22/2004 and the defendant preferred an appeal in R.A.No.24/2004, both before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court by its common judgment and decree dated 20.4.2006, dismissed R.A.No.22/2004 and allowed R.A.No.24/2004 and set aside the judgment and decree under appeal. Further it ordered in the same judgment and decree that the defendant was entitled to recover from the plaintiff a sum of Rs.27,078/.However, office was directed to recover the Court fee on the said amount from the defendant. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.22/2004 and R.A.No.24/2004, the plaintiff has preferred Second Appeal before this Court in RSA.No.2414/2006 and RSA.No.2415/2006 respectively. 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.22/2004 and R.A.No.24/2004, the plaintiff has preferred Second Appeal before this Court in RSA.No.2414/2006 and RSA.No.2415/2006 respectively. 3. The summary of the case of the plaintiff in both the original suits was that the defendant was a tenant under him with respect to the suit schedule property under a lease from 1.9.1985 at a monthly rent of Rs.505/.The tenancy was for a period of 11 months and thereafter, the rent was agreed to be continued for a further period of 11 months with an increase in the rate of rent at 10% upon the amount payable then. The defendant also had paid an advance amount of Rs.25,000/, which was agreed to be paid back to him at the time of delivering the vacant possession of the scheduled property. The defendant had paid rent from 1.9.1994 to 31.8.1995 to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.980/per month as per the Lease Agreement. As per the agreement, the defendant had to pay a monthly rent of Rs.1,430/from 1.9.1998. The defendant was due to pay rent from 1.9.1995 to 31.12.1998, which was amounting to Rs.27,461.89, together with interest thereupon at 21% p.a. Claiming the said arrears of rent, the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant in O.S.No.28/1999 before the trial Court. Thereafter also, the defendant did not pay the rent for the subsequent period also which was at the rate of Rs.1,430/per month from 1.1.1999 to 31.8.1999 and at the rate of Rs.1,573/per month from 1.9.1999 to 31.5.2000, totally amounting to Rs.25,597/. Thereafter, from 1.6.2000 up to 2.8.2000 also, the defendant did not pay the rent. As such, according to the plaintiff, in total, the defendant was liable to pay him the rental due along with interest thereupon at Rs.32,446.36. Claiming the said amount as arrears of rent for the said subsequent period up to 2.8.2000, the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant in the trial Court in O.S.No.178/2000. 4. In both the suits, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed written statement, wherein though he has admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant with respect to the suit schedule property, however, he denied the alleged arrears of rent as claimed by the plaintiff and also his alleged liability to pay the interest on the alleged arrears of rent. In both the suits, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed written statement, wherein though he has admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant with respect to the suit schedule property, however, he denied the alleged arrears of rent as claimed by the plaintiff and also his alleged liability to pay the interest on the alleged arrears of rent. He had also taken a contention that when the plaintiff attempted to execute an order of attachment, he has paid a sum of Rs.12,000/on 19.2.1999. Thereafter, the defendant had filed a petition in HRC.No.7/1996, seeking permission to deposit rent and had deposited a sum of Rs.6,860/in the Court on 19.4.1996. Thus, he had paid total sum of Rs.18,860/. It was the further defence of the defendant in both the suits that for the safety of the suit property and his articles and with the knowledge of the landlord, he had installed collapsible gate by incurring an expenditure of Rs.4,875/and the rolling shutter of the shop was got repaired by spending a sum of Rs.970/, in total amounting to Rs.5,845/. The said amount is payable by the plaintiff to him. The defendant also had taken a contention that the plaintiff was also liable to refund him an advance amount of Rs.25,000/. 5. Based on the pleadings of the parties in O.S.No.28/1999, the trial Court framed the following issues : (1) Does the plaintiff proves that the defendant is in arrears of rent of Rs.27,461.89? (2) Does the plaintiff is entitled for the current and future interest at the rate of 18% p.a.? (3) What order or decree? In order to prove his case in O.S.No.28/1999, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents from Exs.P1 to P9. The Power of Attorney Holder of the defendant by name Vishwanatha, who claims to be the son of the defendant, got examined as DW1 and got marked two documents at Exs.D1 and D2. The trial Court answered issue No.1 partly in the affirmative, issue No.2 in the affirmative and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.10,011/with interest thereupon at 18% p.a. 6. In O.S.No.178/2000, the trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is landlord, the defendant is tenant from 2.9.1985? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendant? In O.S.No.178/2000, the trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is landlord, the defendant is tenant from 2.9.1985? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendant? (3) Whether the defendant proves that he has given advance of Rs.25,000/? (4) Whether the defendant proves the contents of para No.9 of his written statement? (5) What order or decree? In order to prove his case in O.S.No.178/2000, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents from Exs.P1 to P25. On behalf of the defendant, two witnesses were examined as DW1 and DW2 and documents at Exs.D1 to D6 were marked. The trial Court answered issue Nos.1 to 4 in the affirmative and decreed the suit of the plaintiff, holding him entitled for a sum of Rs.26,276/,together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a., from the defendant. 7. In R.A.No.76/2001 and R.A.No.83/2001, the First Appellate Court framed the following points for consideration : (1) Whether the defendant is liable to pay arrears of rent from 1.9.1995 to 31.12.1998 amounting to with interest at 18% p.a. thereupon? (2) Are there any reasons for interference in the judgment and decree under appeal? (3) What order or decree? The First Appellate Court answered point No.1 partly in the affirmative and point No.2 in the affirmative and allowed RA.No.76/2001 in part and dismissed R.A.No.83/2001. 8. In R.A.No.22/2004 and R.A.No.24/2004, the First Appellate Court framed the following points for consideration (1) Whether the defendant is liable to pay the arrears of rent from 1.1.1999 to 31.8.1999 at the rate of per month and from 1.9.1999 to 31.5.2000 and from 1.7.2000 to 2.8.2000 at the rate of per month and interest thereupon at the rate of 18% p.a.? (2) Whether the defendant is entitled for the amounts spent by him for the installation of collapsible gate for the suit schedule premises? (3) Whether the defendant is entitled for refund of a sum of paid by him to the plaintiff as an advance amount? (4) Are there any reasons for interference in the judgment and decree of the trial Court? (5) What order or decree? (3) Whether the defendant is entitled for refund of a sum of paid by him to the plaintiff as an advance amount? (4) Are there any reasons for interference in the judgment and decree of the trial Court? (5) What order or decree? The First Appellate Court answered issue Nos.1 and 4 partly in the affirmative, issue Nos.2 and 3 in the affirmative, and dismissed R.A.No.22/2004 and also the judgment and decree appealed against, however, it allowed R.A.No.24/2004 and held that the defendant was entitled for a sum of Rs.27,078/from the plaintiff. 9. RSA.No.2414/2006 was admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial question of law : “Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in granting the judgment and decree in favour of the defendant in a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of arrears of rent, without there being the counter claim? RSA.No.2415/2006 was admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial question of law : “Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in granting the judgment and decree in favour of the defendant in a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of arrears of rent, without there being the counter claim? In RSA.No.2416/2006, this Court by the order dated 25.3.2009, observed that the substantial question of law framed in RSA.No.2414/2006 and RSA No.2415/2006 would be considered for the purpose of disposal of this appeal also. 10. In response to the notice, the respondent is being represented by his Counsel. 11. The lower Court records were called for and the same are placed before the Court. 12. Heard arguments of learned Counsel from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court. 13. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to henceforth with the ranks they were holding before the trial Court respectively. 14. Ex.P1 in O.S.No.28/1999 is the Lease Agreement which is relied upon by the plaintiff. The defendant also has not disputed the said document. However, the contention of the defendant is that the said document being an Agreement of lease for more than 11 months was required to be registered under the Registration Act, 1908, (henceforth for brevity referred to as `the Act’). The defendant also has not disputed the said document. However, the contention of the defendant is that the said document being an Agreement of lease for more than 11 months was required to be registered under the Registration Act, 1908, (henceforth for brevity referred to as `the Act’). The said document reveals that plaintiff had agreed to lease and the defendant has taken on lease the suit schedule premises on 1.9.1985 at a monthly rental of a sum of Rs.505/payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. The said agreement also shows that in the event of continuation of lease, the lessee has to pay the rent at an enhancement of 10% on the agreed rate of rent prevailing on the date of renewal/continuation of lease. Thus, according to the said agreement, at the end of 11 months, for further period of 11 months, the rent would be at 10% enhancement upon Rs.505/,which comes to a total amount of Rs.555/,after 22 months, it comes to Rs.610/and after 33 months, it comes to Rs.670/and so on. The said agreement also shows that the lessee has deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/with the lesssor/plaintiff as an amount of premium, which the lessor has to refund to the lessee after three months of vacating the premises without any interest. Further, the very same Lease Agreement at para 11 shows that the said Lease Agreement was for a period of five years in the first instance, subject to renewal for further period of another five years on the same type of terms and conditions. 15. It is upon these terms and conditions of the lease, which entitles for continuation up to a period of 10 years, the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant in his argument vehemently contended that after the said period of 10 years, since the defendant being no more a tenant, the appellant/landlord could not have maintained the suit for recovery of arrears of rent, he should have instituted a suit for mesne profits or damages. In that regard, learned counsel relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Bharosey Lal Gupta (dead) by LRs. In that regard, learned counsel relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Bharosey Lal Gupta (dead) by LRs. and others vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and another, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 714 , wherein considering Section 111 and Section 116 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that after the termination of tenancy, the continued possession of the property by the tenant would be only as a tenant of holding over. Thus, in law, holding over of the suit schedule property by the 1st respondent (therein) after the termination of lease was that of a trespasser, not a tenant and therefore, it becomes liable to pay mesne profits by way of damages to the appellants. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant in his argument further relied upon a judgment of this Court in M/s.Auto World, Rep by its Partner Imran Sayeed vs. Smt.K.V.Sathyavathi, rep by her GPA Ranganatha, reported in 2015 (1) Kar.L.R. (Civil) 842, wherein this Court was pleased to observe that, when the relationship of landlord and tenant was terminated, it would be inappropriate to receive any further consideration except when the law expressly enables such receipts, such as Section 112 of the Transfer of Property Act or where Rent Act permits such receipt of rent even during pendency of proceedings for eviction. The receipt of rent as damages unilaterally, without determination of the same at an enquiry, cannot be binding on the tenant. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant contending that the Lease Agreement at Ex.P1 in O.S.No.28/1999 being an unregistered document, cannot be relied upon, has also relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited vs. Behari Lal Kohli, reported in (1989) 4 SCC 39 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that with respect to Section 14(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, that a deed purporting to create a lease is inadmissible in evidence in case it is not registered. As such, all its terms are inadmissible, including the one dealing with landlord’s permission to his tenant to sublet. The question whether a lessee is entitled to create a sublease or not is undoubtedly a term of the transaction of the lease, and if it is incorporated in the document, it cannot be disassociated from the lease and considered separately in isolation. The question whether a lessee is entitled to create a sublease or not is undoubtedly a term of the transaction of the lease, and if it is incorporated in the document, it cannot be disassociated from the lease and considered separately in isolation. In the instant case, even though the Lease Agreement at Ex.P1 in O.S.No.28/1999 mentions that the said Lease Agreement was entered into on 1.9.1985 initially for a period of 11 months, but the very same Lease Agreement enables for continuation of the lease at an enhanced rent for a total period of 10 years, as such, the Lease Agreement would expire on 31.8.1995. Even according to the defendant, he has admitted in his written statement itself at Paras2 and 3 that he continued to be the tenant of the leased premises even after the expiry of the lease term till he vacated the premises on 2.8.2000. Further the very same defendant/respondent by filing a petition under Section 19 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, before the Rent Court at Arasikere, in HRC.No.7/1996, on 17.4.1996, has prayed the Court to direct the appellant/plaintiff to accept the arrears of rent and also the future rent. In the said petition which is at Ex.P20 in O.S.No.178/2000, the present respondent (the petitioner therein) has also stated that he has deposited arrears of rent from September 1995 to March 1996. Therefore, even after the alleged expiry of the lease period and the alleged termination of tenancy, the respondent/defendant continued to identify himself as a tenant and accepting that he is a tenant, he requested the Rent Court to deposit the rental amount treating him as a tenant. Therefore, merely because the suit filed by the plaintiff is for recovery of the amount for a subsequent period after the expiry of the term under Ex.P1, which is the Lease Agreement, by that itself it cannot be held that the plaintiff is not entitled for the recovery of the same towards continued possession of the suit property by the defendant beyond the lease period. 16. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant submitting his argument that the document at Ex.P1 in O.S.No.28/1999 was marked without objection from the defendant side, as such, now the objection regarding its nonregistration cannot be raised, relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P.Temple and another (2003) 8 SCC 752 . In the said judgment, at Para 20, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to observe as below : “Ordinarily, an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes: (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as “an exhibit”, an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken when the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit.” In the instant case, no doubt, the document at Ex.P1 was marked without any specific objection from the defendant in the trial Court, however, it cannot be forgotten that the said document though called as a Lease Agreement initially for a period of 11 months, but, has enabled the parties to be continued to be in the relationship of lessor and lessee for not less than a period of 10 years. Therefore, when it assigns the right in favour of the lessee with respect to the property under the agreement for a period of 10 years, which is in return for a valuable consideration, the said document is required to be compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Act, as such, it falls under Class (i) of the judgment in the case of R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder (supra). Therefore, an objection can be raised even at a later stage, including in this appeal. As such, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that Ex.P1 deserves to be admitted and entertained in its totality since it was not objected to for marking before the trial Court, is not acceptable. 17. The other argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was that even if Ex.P1 is not acceptable since it is an unregistered document, still the said document can be relied upon for its collateral purpose to ascertain the enhancement of the rent payable under the said agreement. 18. When Ex.P1 is perused, it is clear that the main purpose of the agreement is leasing of an immovable property for a valuable consideration. As such, leasing of the property and in its return, receipt of a specified quantum of consideration as a rent amount is the main purpose of the agreement. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the quantum of the rent is for a collateral purpose under the Lease Agreement in the instant case is also not acceptable. 19. Apart from Ex.P1, the Agreement of Lease, there are other materials to ascertain the quantum of rent agreed to between the parties. As already observed, the defendant in his written statement itself, apart from admitting that he was a tenant under the plaintiff with respect to the suit schedule property, has also clearly stated that as on October 1995, the rate of rent was a sum of Rs.980/per month, which amount, he had sent to the plaintiff through registered post. However, the plaintiff did not receive the same. In the very same paragraph of the written statement, the defendant has further stated that, thereafter he filed a petition under Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, In HRC.No.7/1996, for deposit of rent in the Court. However, the plaintiff did not receive the same. In the very same paragraph of the written statement, the defendant has further stated that, thereafter he filed a petition under Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, In HRC.No.7/1996, for deposit of rent in the Court. In the meantime, the plaintiff also had instituted an eviction petition under Section 21 (1)(a) & (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, before the Rent Court at Arasikere in HRC.No.20/1996. In the said petition, the plaintiff had stated as on the date of institution of the petition, the rent payable was at the rate of Rs.1,075/per month. The same is evident from Ex.P4 in O.S.No.28/1999, which is a certified copy of the said petition. The respondent who has filed his statement of objections in the said petition, the certified copy of which is at Ex.P5, has clearly admitted that he is a tenant under the appellant and that he had agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs.1,075/per month. He has also stated that since the appellant has refused to receive the rent, he has deposited the said rent in HRC.No.7/1996. Thus, the respondent/defendant has not only admitted that he continued to be a tenant under the plaintiff even after the alleged expiry of the Lease Agreement, but also has admitted that the rate of rent agreed to be payable as on the said date was Rs.1,075/per month. In view of this admission by none else than the defendant/tenant himself, the finding of the First Appellate Court that due to non-acceptability of Ex.P1 because of its non-registration, the rate of rent to be considered at Rs.505/only per month, is to be considered as an erroneous finding. On the other hand, the established and agreed rate of rent is to be taken at Rs.1,075/per month. 20. The finding of both the lower Courts with respect to the alleged arrears of rent from 1.9.1995 to 2.8.2000 till the defendant vacated the premises, is not in dispute. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the rent at the rate of Rs.1,075/per month from the defendant from 1.9.1995 till 2.8.2000. However, the contention of the defendant that he is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,845/towards installation of collapsible gate and repair charges of rolling shutter to the suit premises has been rightly not accepted by the trial Court giving cogent reasons. However, the contention of the defendant that he is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,845/towards installation of collapsible gate and repair charges of rolling shutter to the suit premises has been rightly not accepted by the trial Court giving cogent reasons. It has rightly observed that a unilateral act of installation of the collapsible gate and the repair of the rolling shutter by a tenant is not acceptable unless due notice in that regard to the landlord under Section 44 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, is given. However, the First Appellate Court ignoring the said provision and giving no cogent reasons, has simply held that the said amount has to be reimbursed since the collapsible gate was installed for the safety of the premises. The said reasoning of the First Appellate Court is not acceptable. Thus, the defendant/tenant is not entitled for the reimbursement of the alleged amount of Rs.5,845/in that regard. Lastly, it is the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that granting the relief to the defendant entitling him to recover a sum of Rs.27,078/from the plaintiff there being no counter claim by him and in a suit filed by the plaintiff, is not justified and uncalled for. The First Appellate Court observing that the defendant had paid a security amount of Rs.25,000/to the plaintiff was entitled for its recovery and also a sum of Rs.5,845/towards installation of collapsible gate and repair of the rolling shutter, had ordered the plaintiff to pay that amount to the defendant, however, after deducting a sum of Rs.3,767/which was stated to be the arrears of rent as on the said date. As already observed above, the defendant is not entitled for reimbursement of the alleged expenses of Rs.5,845/towards installation of collapsible gate and repair charges of the rolling shutter. 21. For the remaining sum of Rs.25,000/, the receipt of which has not been disputed by the plaintiff as a security amount, the defendant as a tenant, had filed a suit in S.C.No.47/2001 as could be seen from Ex.P17 in O.S.No.178/2000. According to the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the said plaint came to be rejected on 13.2.2003, upon an order on IA.No.2, filed by the plaintiff (landlord). The said order which was in the form of a decree was not challenged in an appropriate manner. According to the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the said plaint came to be rejected on 13.2.2003, upon an order on IA.No.2, filed by the plaintiff (landlord). The said order which was in the form of a decree was not challenged in an appropriate manner. However, the tenant had filed a Civil Revision Petition before this Court, which came to be dismissed. As such, the said dismissal of the petition for recovery of the alleged advance amount has reached its finality. The said aspect has not been denied or disputed by the respondent herein (tenant). Therefore, when a claim for the refund of the alleged advance amount has been agitated in a separate proceeding and its finding in S.C.No.47/2001 has reached its finality, then, the First Appellate Court was not justified in ordering for repayment of the said amount in R.A.No.22/2004 and R.A.No.24/2004, that too, in the absence of any counter claim by the tenant in that regard. Therefore, the substantial question of law framed in all these three appeals have been answered in the negative, holding that the First Appellate Court was not justified in granting the judgment and decree in favour of the defendant in a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of arrears of rent without there being a counter claim. 22. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) RSA.No.2414/2006, RSA.No.2415/2006 and RSA.No.2416/2006 are allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 20.4.2006 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Arasikere, in RA.No.76/2001 and RA.No.83/2001, are set aside. RA.No.76/2001 filed by the defendant is dismissed. RA.No.83/2001 filed by the plaintiff is allowed in part. The judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.28/1999 by the Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Arasikere, dated 8.6.2001, is modified and it is decreed that the plaintiff is entitled to recover arrears of rent from the defendant at the rate of Rs.1,075/per month from 1.9.1995 to 31.12.1998, together with interest thereupon at 6% p.a. from the date of institution of the suit till its realisation from the defendant. (iii) The judgment and decree dated 20.4.2006 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Arasikere, in RA.No.22/2004 and RA.No.24/2004, are set aside. RA.No.24/2004 filed by the defendant is dismissed. RA.No.22/2004 filed by the plaintiff is allowed in part. (iii) The judgment and decree dated 20.4.2006 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Arasikere, in RA.No.22/2004 and RA.No.24/2004, are set aside. RA.No.24/2004 filed by the defendant is dismissed. RA.No.22/2004 filed by the plaintiff is allowed in part. The judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.178/2000 by the Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Arasikere, dated 17.11.2003, is modified and it is decreed that the plaintiff is entitled to recover arrears of rent from the defendant at the rate of Rs.1,075/per month from 1.1.1999 to 2.8.2000 together with interest thereupon at 6% p.a. from the date of institution of the suit till its realisation from the defendant. Draw modified decrees accordingly.