JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendants against an order passed by Civil Judge, Class I, Indore in Civil suit No. 50a of 1975 dated 19-7-1977. ( 2. ) IT appears that after the order passed by the Court below under section 13 (2) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, affirmed by this court in Civil Revision No. 90 of 1975 on 7-9-1976, the petitioners got an order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority before whom proceedings under section 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") were pending. By the order under section 11 of the Act the Rent Controlling Authority fixed interim rent at Rs. 600 per year. Thereafter the petitioners wanted to amend their written statement by saying that as interim rent has been fixed by the Rent Controlling Authority that should be the rent recoverable under section 13 (1) of the Act. The learned Court below rejected the application holding that the interim rent fixed by the Rent Controlling Authority under section 11 has no bearing in the suit for ejectment as provisions contained in section 13 do not talk of any order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority under section 11. The application for amendment was thus rejected. ( 3. ) ANOTHER application was submitted by the petitioners praying that the petitioners be permitted to deposit rent at the rate at which it has been fixed by the Rent Controlling Authority under section 11 as according to the petitioners that was the rent payable until standard rent is fixed under section 10 of the Act and the interim rent so fixed by the Rent Controlling authority replaces the contractual rent. This application also was rejected and against this a revision petition has been preferred before this Court which is Civil Revision No. 684 of 1977. The present order shall govern the disposal of both these revision petitions. ( 4. ) AS regards the revision petition against the order rejecting the amendment of the written statement, it is clear that it was not the plea that the defendants are only entitled to pay standard rent nor it is the plea raised that interim rent alone is payable,: between the parties in face of a specific contract. ( 4. ) AS regards the revision petition against the order rejecting the amendment of the written statement, it is clear that it was not the plea that the defendants are only entitled to pay standard rent nor it is the plea raised that interim rent alone is payable,: between the parties in face of a specific contract. Apparently, there is no question of amendment of the written statement as admittedly standard rent is yet to be fixed and merely because the Rent Controlling Authority by an interim order under section 11 has fixed some rent to be paid by the tenant the petitioners prayer cannot be allowed; there is no provision in the Act which lays down that in all proceedings the contractual rent will not be chargeable when interim rent has been fixed by the Rent Controlling Authority under section 11. Section 5 of the Act no doubt provides : "5. (1) No tenant shall, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, be liable to pay to his landlord for the occupation of any accommodation any amount in excess of the standard rent of the accommodation. (2) Any agreement for the payment of rent in excess of the standard rent shall be construed as if it were an agreement for the payment of the standard rent only. " This section overrides all contracts; but it only talks of standard rent. This section nowhere refers to the interim rent fixed by the"rent Controlling authority. "standard Rent" has been defined in section 7 of the Act and the definition of standard rem in this provision also nowhere lays down that unless the standard rent is finally determined by the Rent Controlling authority, the interim rent fixed under section 11 shall be the standard rent. Thus section 5 of the Act does not come into play at all. ( 5. ) SECTION 13 of the Act also does not talk of any interim rent fixed by the Rent Controlling Authority. In fact sub-section (2; authorizes the Civil court before whom the suit for ejectment is pending to fix provisional rent in case of a dispute of rate of rent raised by the tenant. ( 5. ) SECTION 13 of the Act also does not talk of any interim rent fixed by the Rent Controlling Authority. In fact sub-section (2; authorizes the Civil court before whom the suit for ejectment is pending to fix provisional rent in case of a dispute of rate of rent raised by the tenant. In the present case, when such a dispute was attempted to be raised, the Court below passed an order Under section 13 (2) of the Act holding that there is no dispute and virtually passed an order holding that the contractual rent is the provisional rent which the tenant defendants are bound to deposit in accordance with the provisions contained in section 13 (1) of the Act. This order was maintained by this Court in the revision petition referred to above. ( 6. ) IN substance, in both these revision petitions the main question that has been raised by the petitioners is that when the petitioners-tenants are supposed to deposit rent and pay in accordance with the provisions contained in section 13 (1), if the Rent Controlling Authority fixes rent, during the pendency of proceedings under section 10, under section 11,-whether the civil Court under section 13 is bound to take notice of the interim rent fixed by the Rent Controlling Authority under section 11 ? As discussed earlier, section 13 nowhere talks of any order that the Rent Controlling Authority may pass under section 11. It is also clear that there is no provision in this act which gives an overriding effect to the order passed by the Rent Control-ling Authority under section 11 as by section 5 an order passed under section 10 has been given an overriding effect. Apparently, therefore, so long as standard rent is not fixed the order passed by the civil Court under section 13 (3) holding the contractual rent to be the provisional rent has to be accepted. This could not be superseded by an order passed by the Rent controlling Authority under section 11. ( 7. ) THE scheme of sections 10 and 11 indicates that during the pendency of the proceedings under section 10 the Rent Controlling Authority is expected to pass an order fixing interim rent as contemplated in section 11 so that the tenant at least may deposit in those proceedings rent at that rate. ( 8. ( 7. ) THE scheme of sections 10 and 11 indicates that during the pendency of the proceedings under section 10 the Rent Controlling Authority is expected to pass an order fixing interim rent as contemplated in section 11 so that the tenant at least may deposit in those proceedings rent at that rate. ( 8. ) IN a suit for eviction pending before a civil Court section 13 provides that if there is any dispute about rent payable the civil Court will have jurisdiction under subsection (2) of section 13 to fix provisional rent. The Legislature carefully used two different terms. In section 13 (2) they used the term "reasonable provisional rent" and in section 11 they used the term "interim rent" It is, therefore, clear that the order passed under section 11 is only binding in the proceedings under section 10 whereas an order passed under section 13 (2) by the civil Court is binding in proceedings of eviction pending before a civil Court. ( 9. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners referred to a decision in wadhumal v. Amulmai, (1973 M P L J Note 100.) Unfortunately, this is not a full report and the facts are not clearly stated. The facts stated in the first paragraph of the note do not indicate that any proceedings under section 10 were taken before the rent Controlling Authority It only refers to the proceedings before a civil court where the question under sections 13 (6) and 13 (2) was considered. In the last paragraph of this note it appears that it has been observed,- "if standard rent is fixed under section 10 or interim standard rent is fixed under section 11 such rent would be payable with effect from the date fixed by the Rent Controlling Authority for the purpose of section 13 of the Act. " It appears that this was not the question for decision in that case as it appears from the facts stated and it appears, therefore, that this is not the law laid down in that decision. Unfortunately, in absence of the detailed report nothing could be said on the basis of this short note. ( 10. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners referred to a decision in Fattan das v. Nathulal, (1971 MPLJ Note 93. ). This again, unfortunately, is a short note and the whole report is not before us. Unfortunately, in absence of the detailed report nothing could be said on the basis of this short note. ( 10. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners referred to a decision in Fattan das v. Nathulal, (1971 MPLJ Note 93. ). This again, unfortunately, is a short note and the whole report is not before us. It is also not clear from the note what was the real dispute in that revision petition. The observations on which reliance has been placed are,- "at the highest, it can be said that where provisional rent is fixed under section 11, the contractual rent is replaced by the amount of interim rent for the interim period, but that by itself does not take away the powers of the Civil Court under section 13 (2), which empowers the Court to fix a reasonable provisional rent, irrespective of contractual rent and, therefore, irrespective of the interim rent. " (Italics mine.)It, therefore, only appears that what has been observed is that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to fix provisional rent under section 13 (2) is neither subject to the contractual rent nor subject to any interim rent fixed by the rent Controlling Authority. This, therefore, clearly goes to show that the civil Court while considering a question under section 13 (2) is not bound by the order of the Rent Controlling Authority under section 11 of the Act. In the present case, the situation is still worse; an order had already been passed under section 13 (2) and therefore the subsequent order passed by the rent Controlling Authority under section 11 cannot reopen the matter under section 13 (1) of the Act. Admittedly, standard rent has not been fixed. ( 11. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court reported in Mohammad Atiqua Siddigna v. Munshi Anus Ahmed3. In this decision section 15 (3) of the Delhi Rent control Act, 1958, was being considered. Admittedly, standard rent has not been fixed. ( 11. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court reported in Mohammad Atiqua Siddigna v. Munshi Anus Ahmed3. In this decision section 15 (3) of the Delhi Rent control Act, 1958, was being considered. Sub-section (3) of section 15 of that Act reads: "15 (3) If, in any proceedings referred to in sub-section (1) or subsection (2) there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the Controller shall, within fifteen days of the date of the first hearing of the proceedings fix an interim rent in relation to the arrears to be paid or deposited in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1)or sub-section (2) as the case may be, until the standard rent in relation thereto is fixed having regard to the provision of this Act; and the amount of arrears, if any calculated on the basis of the standard rent shall be paid or deposited by the tenant within one month of the date on which the standard rent is fixed or such further time as the Controller may allow in this behalf. " Admittedly, there is no such provision in the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act. In fact, the provisions contained in section 13 do not talk of any interim rent at all. In view of this, the above decision also is of no help to the petitioners. ( 12. ) IN the light of the discussion above, therefore, both the revision petitions filed by the petitioners are without substance, and are accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petitions dismissed. Q