JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order of the Munsif, Jodhpur City, dated 25.9.1980, in execution case No. 8 of 1979. 2. The facts giving rise to the present revision petition may, briefly, be stated as under : 3. A suit for fixation of standard rent was instituted by respondent No. 1 and it was prayed in that suit that the rent of the disputed shop be enhanced from Rs. 25/- to Rs. 37.50. This suit was dismissed by trial Court on 3.6.1972 on the ground that the temple was a public trust, which was not registered. The first appellate Court, however, decreed the plaintiff's suit on 25.7.1947 in the following terms:- "The plaintiffs suit for increase of rent is decreed with costs in toto and the increases shall be due and recoverable after the end of the month in which the notice is issued." A revision petition was preferred against the decree of the first appellate Court by the defendants, but the same was dismissed. Thereafter the plaintiffs filed execution application and in that execution prayed for the recovery of Rs. 5,287.50 on account of rent from Samat. 2024 to 2035. An objection was raised by the defendant-judgment-debtor that the decree was merely a declaratory decree and after arrears of rent the said decree is inexecutable. The plaintiffs in the suit for standard rent paid a fixed Court-fees of Rs. 10/-. The learned executing Court, after hearing the parties, rejected the judgment-debtor's objection. Dissatisfied with that the judgment-debtor has preferred this revision petition. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the impugned order of the learned executing Court deserves to be set aside. It may be stated that there was no suit for arrears of rent and suit for arrears of rent was not decreed. The increase in rent was effected by the first appellate Court. The increase was effected from the end of the month in which the notice was issued. The phraseology, which was used by the first appellate Court in decreeing the plaintiff's suit is with regard to the date when increase will be effective, is that the increases shall be due and recoverable after the end of the month in which the notice is issued. The phraseology, which was used by the first appellate Court in decreeing the plaintiff's suit is with regard to the date when increase will be effective, is that the increases shall be due and recoverable after the end of the month in which the notice is issued. These words and expression in the decree of the first appellate Court only mean from which date the increase shall be effected. It cannot be taken that the suit for arrears of rent was decreed. As a matter of fact there was no suit for arrears of rent and the plaintiff did not pay any Court-fees on arrears of rent. Admittedly, as stated by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs non-petitioners, no rent was due on the date of the filing of the suit. In execution of the decree for standard rent, even if Court-fees has been filed, it would not convert the decree for standard rent into a decree for arrears of rent. It is only the words of the decree of the first appellate Court, which are to be seen and which, to my mind, are very clear. No decree has been passed for arrears of rent and, as such the decree-holder is not entitled to effect recovery of arrears of rent in execution of the decree of standard rent. There is no provisions under the relevant Sections 6 and 7 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, whereby it can be said that in a suit for fixation of standard rent, decree for rent due is also required to be passed. Sub-section (5) of Section 6 simply lays down that when the Court determines the standard rent of any premises, then it shall appoint a date for which the standard rent so determined shall be deemed to have effect. Proviso to sub-section (5) deals with a situation when suit for standard rent if filed after the expiration of six months from the commencement of the tenancy on the ground of the rent being excessive. Thus, under sub-section (5) of Section 6, the Court is under an obligation to fix date from which the slandered shall be deemed to have effect. The first appellate Court, while fixing the date discharged its obligation under sub-section (5) of the Section 6. Thus, under sub-section (5) of Section 6, the Court is under an obligation to fix date from which the slandered shall be deemed to have effect. The first appellate Court, while fixing the date discharged its obligation under sub-section (5) of the Section 6. Thus, instead of using the expression that the increase shall have effect form a particular date the first appellate Court used the expression that the increase shall be due and recoverable from the given date. This change in expression is of no consequence. Thus, this revision petition deserves to be allowed. 5. In result, the revision is allowed and order of the executing Court, dismissing the above objection, is set aside and it is held that the decree dated 25.7.1974 is only declaratory in relation to the standard rent. In the circumstances of the case of the parties shall bear their own costs of this revision petition.Petition allowed. *******