JUDGMENT 1. - Mr. Rafiq states that service on non-petitioners Nos. 3, 4, 5 & 9, is not necessary in this case, as pure question of law is involved, and as ex parte proceedings are going on against these non-petitioners. He prayed that the names of these non-petitioners may be deleted from the array of the non-petitioners in the revision petition. 2. Accordingly, the names of Mst. Sarbati, Mst. Bhagwati, and Mst. Ginni non-petitioners Nos. 3 to 5 and Mst. Chandrakala non-petitioner No. 9, are deleted from the array of non-petitioners in this revision petition. 3. With the consent of both the parties, the revision petition is being finally disposed of at this stage. 4. The non-petitioners filed a suit for rent and eviction, against the petitioner, in the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu, on 1st April 76. Issues were framed on 27th July, 77. The case was then fixed for the plaintiff's evidence, who closed his evidence. After the closure of the plaintiff's evidence, the plaintiff moved an application under Section 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, "the Act"), on 4th Feb , 84, for determination of provisional rent. That application was disposed of by the learned Munsif on 5th May, 84, rent was determined; and the application was granted by the learned Munsif. The defendants appealed before the apoellate court, and the learned Civil Judge vide his order dated 24th July, 86, dismissed the said appeal and upheld the order of the learned Munsif. Against that impugned order dated 24th July, 86, the present revision petition has been preferred. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the provisions of Section 13 (3) of the Act are mandatory, and that, according to this section, an application for determination of rent shall be moved on the first date of hearing or on any other date as the court may fix in this behalf which shall not be more than 3 months after the filing of the written statement and shall be before the framing of issues. His argument is that the present application was filed by the plaintiff after the closure of his evidence, i.e., after 8 years of the filing of the suit, or about 1 years after framing of the issues, which were framed on 27th July 77. His argument is that the present application was filed by the plaintiff after the closure of his evidence, i.e., after 8 years of the filing of the suit, or about 1 years after framing of the issues, which were framed on 27th July 77. According to him, there is no provision for this sort of belated application under Section 13 (3) of the Act, and that the learned Munsif as well as the learned Appellate Court have committed error in not following the provisions of the Act. 6. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners argued that no doubt, the application had been filed with delay, but, the delay could be condoned by the Court, and the court was fully empowered to determine the rent. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on the case of (I) Ramchandra v. Nanakram 1980 WLN 128 . In that case, brother Justice Agrawal, while dealing with the provision of Section 13 (3) of the Act, held as under : "In my view, the essence of the legislative mandate is that there must be a provisional determination of the amount of rent payable by the tenant to the landlord. It must, therefore be concluded that the period prescribed in sub-sec. (3) of Section 13 of the Act within which the court should make provisional determination of the amount of rent to be deposited in court or to be paid to the land-lord by the tenant cannot be regarded as mandatory and that It is only directory and the order dated 21st Mar, 77 cannot be held to be invalid merely because it was passed more than three months after the finding of the written statement." 7. On the other hand, Mr. Rifiq also relied on a latter case of this High Court in the case of (2) Modmal v. Maheshwarl Samaj, Jodhpur, 1986 RLR 540 , wherein, brother Justice Byas has observed as under : "A bare reading of this sub-section makes it abundantly clear that the provisional rent is to be determined either on the first date of hearing or any other date fixed by the Court for that purpose, and in no case, after framing of the issues. The stage for determining the provisional rent comes to an end as soon as the issues are framed. After the issues are framed, the stage for determining the provisional rent remains no more." 8. The stage for determining the provisional rent comes to an end as soon as the issues are framed. After the issues are framed, the stage for determining the provisional rent remains no more." 8. Considered the arguments of both the learned counsel and perused the provisions of Section 13 (3) of the Act. A bare reading of this section indicates that the provisions are mandatory in nature, and imporative, when it casts a duty on the trial court to determine provisionally the arrears of rent to be deposited or paid by the tenant. The tenant can move an application under this section. But, if no application has been moved by the tenant or by the landlord, the court is duty bound to give the effect of section 13 (3) of the Act. The court suo motu is empowered to determine the provisional rent. But, in all respect, in my view, while agreeing with the view of Justice Byas, the provisions of Section 13 (3) of the Act, are mandatory and imparative. According to this section, an application is to be moved within three months after the filing of the written statement or before the framing of the issues. In the present case, no application was moved before framing of the issues, nor was any request made by the either party to the court, and the trial court also suo mots did not determine the provisional rent, and the case proceeded. The plaintiff examined his witnesses and closed their evidence, and now, after 8 years of framing of the issues, in the year 1984, the plaintiff moved this application under section 13 (3) of the Act. This application was highly belated. There was no justification for the lower court to have granted this application, which was moved contrary to the provisions of Section 13 (3) of the Act, and which was also after a lapse or 7 years of the framing of the issues. The orders of the courts below, are therefore, not correct ones, and hence, they cannot be maintained. 9. The revision petition is, therefore, accepted. The order of the learned Munsif dated 5th May, 84; and that of the learned Civil Judge dated 24th July, 86, are hereby quashed. There will be no order as to costs.Revision accepted. *******