JUDGMENT 1. - This revision by the defendant is directed against the order of Additional District Judge No. 1, dated 31-3-1986 confirming the older of Civil Judge, Alwar dated 26-11-1982. 2. Brief facts leading to this revision are that the plaintiff non-petitioner filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against the petitioner and Shri Babu Ram Joshi, non-petitioner No. 2, According to the plaintiff the disputed premises were given on rent in June, 1972 at a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. It was further alleged that the defendants had not paid any rent since 1-2-1980 and had thus committed default in the payment of rent for more than 6 months. The suit was also based on the reasonable and bonafide personal necessity of the plaintiff and that the defendant had sublet the premises. 3. The defendant petitioner filed a written statement denying all the allegations and further took the plea that the premises were initially taken on rent at Rs. 100/- per month in 1972 and thereafter the rent was increased to Rs. 115/- per month in December, 1972 and to Rs. 125/- per month from September, 1975 and in December, 1975 the rent was increased to Rs. 150/-per month. It was further averred that the rent was paid by the defendant according to the above rates and receipts were issued by the plaintiff. It was further alleged that the rent of the premises was Rs. 60/- only before it was let out to the defendant. In these circumstances the defendant prayed that the basic rent of the premises being Rs. 60/- per month on at Rs. 100/-per month, the standard rent should be fixed by the court. 4. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder to the written statement in which he took the plea that the premises were never let out to the defendants on Rs. 100/- per month, in 1977 but it was let out at Rs. 150/- per month. It was further stated in the rejoinder that the same premises were let out in 1968 @ Rs. 125/- per month and as such there was no question of letting out the same premises to the defendants @ Rs. 100/- per month in 1972. It was also alleged that admittedly since 1976 the defendant was paying rent at rate of Rs. 150/- per month and at present the premises could fetch Rs. 1000/-per month. 125/- per month and as such there was no question of letting out the same premises to the defendants @ Rs. 100/- per month in 1972. It was also alleged that admittedly since 1976 the defendant was paying rent at rate of Rs. 150/- per month and at present the premises could fetch Rs. 1000/-per month. It was also stated in the rejoinder that hugs amount was spent by the plaintiff before letting out the same to the defendant and there is great rise in rent in the premises situated at Alwar. 5. Learned trial court by order dated 26-11-1982 determined the provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (here in after referred to the Act) at rate of Rs. 150/-per month which was the last paid rent by the defendant. The petitioner aggrieved against the order of the learned trial court filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alwar by order dated 31-3-1986. 6. The defendant aggrieved against the orders of the lower courts has filed this revision. 7. It was contended by Mr. P.D. Mathur, learned Counsel for the defendant that the defendant had taken a plea in the written statement for fixation of standard rent and had also taken a plea that the basic rent was Rs. 60/- per month or at the most Rs. 100/- per month on first day of January, 1965 and as such the provisional rent ought to have been fixed in accordance with Section 7 of the Act. It was submitted that if the standard rent itself could not have exceeded more than Rs. 120/- per month, there was no question of fixing the provisional rent at rate of Rs. 150/- per month, 8. It was further submitted that the lower courts were not right in determining the rent under Section 13(3) of the Act on the basis of the agreed rent, when the defendant petitioner had taken a plea of fixation of standard rent in the written statement, It was contended that in these circumstances the court was bound to decide the provisional rent under Section 7 of the Act and not in accordance with the principles contained under Section 13(3) of the Act. It was further submitted that the provisions of Section 7 of the Act are mandatory and they will over-ride the provisions of Section 13(3) of the Act. 9. On the other hand Mr. R.K. Mathur learned Counsel for the plaintiff contended that the plaintiff had never admitted that the agreed rent in 1972 was Rs. 100/- per month but on the other hand according to the plaintiff the rent was Rs. 150/- per month. It was further submitted that the lower courts have taken into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and have found that the provisional rent in this case should be Rs. 150/- per month according to the agreed rent of Rs. 150/- per month admittedly paid by the defendant from 1976. It was further submitted that the defendant petitioner is going to be prejudiced in any manner in as much as he is paying rent at rate of Rs. 150/- per month From 1976 and even if ultimately the standard rent would be reduced then the same can be adjusted from the future rent. It was submitted that the prices of the properties at Alwar have gone very high and there is no justification in reducing the provisional rent to Rs. 100/- per month from the agreed rent of Rs. 150/- per month which is paid by the defendant admittedly from 1976. It was also contended by Mr. R.K. Mathur, that this Hon'ble Court should not interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction where the orders passed by the courts below are just and proper and meet the ends of justice. 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for both the parties. So far as the legal position is concerned in my view where any suit is filed for arrears of rent and no plea is taken by the defendant in the written statement for fixation of standard rent, then the provisions of Section 13(3) alone are attracted and the court in such case shall determine the provisional rent according to the principles contained in Section 13(3) of the Act. However, in a case where a suit is filed by the plaintiff for arrears of rent and the defendant also takes a plea for fixation of standard rent then the question which calls for determination is as to how the provisions of Section 7 which also lay down for fixation of provisional rent are to be reconciled with the provisions of Section 13(3) of the Act. In my view where such contingency arises, the court is called upon to fix the provisional rent. Both under Section 13(3) as well as under Section 7 the provisional rent has to be fixed by the court. Such determination of the rent which is provisional in nature does not finally determine the rights of the parties and such provisional rent will be ultimately subject to the final determination of standard rent to be fixed by the court under Section 6 of the Act. In such circumstances the court should apply its mind by taking into consideration cumulatively the provisions of Section 13(3) as well as Section 7 for fixing the provisional rent. In such kind of case it is not incumbent upon the court to fix the provisional rent on the basis of principle of agreed rent alone as contemplated under Section 13(3) of the Act. The court in such kind of case should also lake into consideration the provision of Section 7 of the Act before determining the provisional rent. After considering both the provisions, the court should determine such provisional rent which may be fair and just in the facts and circumstances of that case. 11. Thus, in the present case both the lower courts were not right in so far as they totally ignored the provisions of Section 7 of the Act while determining the provisional rent and merely applying principle of agreed rent in fixing the provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the Act. 12. The question now further calls for consideration is whether this court should give a direction to the trial court to again decide the provisional rent by applying the above principles or the same should be decided by this court without remanding the case. I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties, at length on the question of fixing provisional rent in the present case. The admitted facts of the case are that the defendant petitioner is paying rent at rate of Rs. I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties, at length on the question of fixing provisional rent in the present case. The admitted facts of the case are that the defendant petitioner is paying rent at rate of Rs. 150/- per month to the plaintiff since 1976. There is a dispute between the parties regarding the rent fixed in 1972. The defendant is relying on certain receipts issued by the plaintiff at rate of Rs. 100/- per month. One the other hand the case of the plaintiff is that he never agreed the rent to be Rs. 100/- per month in 1972 but the same was fixed at Rs. 150/- per month. Regarding the receipts his explanation is that his counsel had mentioned Rs. 100/- per month in the notice given to the defendant subject to confirmation by the plaintiff Apart from that the case of the plaintiff is that he has submitted a rent deed of 1968 of these very premises in which the rent fixed was Rs. 125/- per month. The case of the plaintiff further is that after 1968 there was no question of reducing the rent to Rs. 100/- per month in any case there was no ground or justification for reducing the rent from Rs. 150/- in 1986 when the rent in Alwar has gone very high. So far as the above controversy between the parties is concerned it has yet to be decided by the trial court after recording evidence of both the parties. As already mentioned above the admitted position in the case is that the defendant is paying rent at rate of Rs. 150/- per month from 1976. It is a matter of common knowledge that in Alwar as well as cities the rent has increased many fold during this period. Though the lower courts have determined the provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the Act. only but they have considered the said rent to be proper till the final disposal of the suit. Even if ultimately the standard rent in the present suit is fixed lower than Rs. 150/- per month, the petitioner who is a tenant in the premises is not going to suffer any irreparable loss if the provisional rent is determined at Rs. 150/- per month itself. Even if ultimately the standard rent in the present suit is fixed lower than Rs. 150/- per month, the petitioner who is a tenant in the premises is not going to suffer any irreparable loss if the provisional rent is determined at Rs. 150/- per month itself. In view of these circumstances I am clearly of the view that if the impugned orders are allowed to stand they would neither occasion a failure of justice nor cause any irreparable injury to the defendant petitioner so as to call for any interference under Section 115 C.P.C. In the result I find no fores in the present revision and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.Revision dismissed. *******