JUDGMENT : 1. - The learned Single Judge by his order dated 21.7.86 has referred the following question to be answered by a larger Bench:- "Whether even in a case where the tenant pleads that he has paid rent to his landlord (other than the plaintiff), who had inducted him as a tenant and his denial of the title is not frivolous, it is obligatory on the trial court to provisionally determine the amount of rent payable to the plaintiff under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950." 2. However, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the Division Bench re-framed the question on 6.12.1988 as under:- "Whether Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 is attracted in a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in Clause (1) [sic(a)] of Sub-sec (1) with or without any of the other grounds referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act, even if the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is denied by the defendant?" 3. We may state a few facts giving rise to the present reference. 4. The plaintiff petitioner instituted three suits against the respondents in the three revision petitions with the allegations that the property described in the plaint belonged to one Raja Keshri Singh. Some of the houses situated in the property were gifted to the plaintiff petitioner through a registered gift-deed dated 23.7.55. The validity of the said gift deed was challenged by Gangasingh, the elder son of Raja Keshri Singh in Civil suit No. 27 of 1956 in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which was decreed in his favour on 31.8.59. During the pendency of that suit, Shri Ganga Singh died. The plaintiff petitioner Smt. Tulsi Bai preferred an appeal in the High Court, which was allowed on 12.5.71 and the gift-deed was held to be valid. The plaintiff petitioner Tulsi Bai averred in the plaint filed against the defendant for eviction that the suit shoped were rented out to the defendants by Bhawani Singh S/o Raja Keshri Singh on her behalf. The suit shops were got constructed by Bhawani Singh on her behalf. 5. The plaintiff petitioner Tulsi Bai averred in the plaint filed against the defendant for eviction that the suit shoped were rented out to the defendants by Bhawani Singh S/o Raja Keshri Singh on her behalf. The suit shops were got constructed by Bhawani Singh on her behalf. 5. The defendants-tenants' case is that the suit-shops were never taken on rent from the plaintiff-petitioner Smt. Tulsi Bai nor any rent was ever paid to her. Their case is that they are the tenants of Bhawanisingh and they executed rent-notes in his favour and used to pay rent to him and after the death of Raja Bhawanisingh, they have executed the rent-notes in favour of the widow of Raja Bhawani Singh, Smt. Kamal Kumari and his sons; Himmatsingh and Daljitsingh. The Additional Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 16.9.78 determined the provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the Act on the basis of the material on record after hearing both the parties. The trial court considered that the land on which the shops in question exist was gifted b Raja Keshrisingh to Smt. Tulsi Bai through a registered gift-deed, which has been held to be valid by the High Court on 12.5.71. It was further considered that some of the observations made in the judgment support the plaintiff's case that the property was looked after by Raja Bhawanisingh on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner. As the title vested in the plaintiff. so, this presumption is also in accordance with the common course of human conduct. Considering prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner, the trial court determined the provisional rent and directed the defendants to deposit the same within a period of 15 days. No order for deposit of rent was passed in respect to the period prior to 1st September, 1978, as the same was said to have been paid by the defendants to the widow of Raja Bhawanisingh and in respect of which the receipts have been filed. It was observed that it would not be proper to order deposit of the rent again and in case, it is proved that the defendants are the tenants of the plaintiff, a decree can be passed against the defendants. 6. The tenants preferred appeals before the Civil Judge, Jaipur City. It was observed that it would not be proper to order deposit of the rent again and in case, it is proved that the defendants are the tenants of the plaintiff, a decree can be passed against the defendants. 6. The tenants preferred appeals before the Civil Judge, Jaipur City. The learned Civil Judge observed that no documentary evidence has been produced by the plaintiff to show that the defendants were inducted as tenants in the suit-shops by Raja Bhawanisingh on her behalf and that the rents were paid to him as such. Whereas, the case of the tenant Ramchandra is that he was inducted as tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/- on 26.8.67 by Raja Bhawanisingh and he executed a remote in his favour. Ishwardass-defendant was inducted as a tenant on 19.4.68 by Bhawanisingh through ren-note on a monthly rent of  Rs.40/- and Sachhanand Sahib Kumar was also inducted as a tenant on 1.10.87 on a monthly rent of Rs.40/- through the rent-note. The rent-notes do not recite that Bhawanisingh let out the suit-shop on behalf of Smt. Tulsi Bai. The rent receipts were filed by Shri Ram Chandra. The rent was also paid to Kamal Kumari by him. Ishwardass filed the rent account and it shows that the rent was first paid to Raja Bhawanisingh and thereafter to Kamal Kumari. Similarly, Sachhanand also produced rent-receipts issued by Raja Bhawanisingh and his widow. On the basis of the material on record, the learned Civil Judge found that there does not exist any relationship of the landlord and tenant between Smt. Tulsi Bai. The learned Civil Judge relied on the decision of this Court in Ganesh Narain v. Ranchhor Dass, 1978 RLW 388 and according to him, it was held in the aforesaid decision that the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not to be enquired into even summarily but it has to be decided on the basis of the material on record in a summary way and determine the rent provisionally. Reference was made to the decisions in Baidyanath Kundu v. Smt Jyotshna Rani Carmakar and Syed Ahmed v. Naimathullah Shareef . Reference was made to the decisions in Baidyanath Kundu v. Smt Jyotshna Rani Carmakar and Syed Ahmed v. Naimathullah Shareef . In the Calcutta case, it as held that no defence can be struck off until and unless the question of relationship of landlord and tenant is decided by the Court and in the Andhra Pradesh decision, it was held that application under Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Rent Act can be decided only after the decision on the question regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Reference was also made to a Single Bench decision of this Court in Naneshah v. Ram Kumar, 1966 RLW 146 in which, it was held that it was only after determination of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, action can be taken under Section 13(4) and Section 13(5) of the Act. The learned Single Judge in Ganesh Narain's case (supra) observed that Naneshah's case (supra) was decided prior to the amendment of Section 13 by Amending Ordinance No. 26 of 1975. The learned Civil Judge also observed that both the parties have relied upon the decision of Ganesh Narain v. Ranchhore Dass (supra). He distinguished the facts of Ganesh Narain's case (supra) with the facts of the present case that on the basis of the material on record, it cannot be found that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and so the question of applicability of the provision of the Act does not aries. It was also recorded that the trial court as well as the appellate court has considered the matter tentatively on the basis of the material on record without conducting any summary enquiry. This question would be decided finally in the suit after recording the evidence of the parties and this interim order will not in any way affect the final decision of the suit on this question. 7. When revision was preferred by the plaintiff petitioner, S.N. Bhargava, J. expressed his inability to agree with the view taken in Ganesh Narain's case (supra) and Bhargava, J. observed that the tenants, who were inducted as tenants by some-one-else other than the plaintiff-landlord and they have been paying rent regularly. 7. When revision was preferred by the plaintiff petitioner, S.N. Bhargava, J. expressed his inability to agree with the view taken in Ganesh Narain's case (supra) and Bhargava, J. observed that the tenants, who were inducted as tenants by some-one-else other than the plaintiff-landlord and they have been paying rent regularly. If somebody filed a suit for rent and ejectment, it will not be fair to ask the tenants to deposit the rent again in court or punish them if they fail to obey the order of the Court and loose their protection given by the Act. He also expressed that the decision of Ganesh Narain (supra) requires re-consideration by a larger Bench. Consequently, reference was made on the above question which was re-framed by the Division Bench. 8. We have heard Shri Virendra Bandhu, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner and Shri Ajeet Bhandari, learned counsel for the defendant-respondents. 9. For proper appreciation and adjudication of the controversy in question, we reproduce the relevant provisions of Section 13 of the Act : "Sec. 13. Eviction of tenants, -(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no court shall pass any decree or make any order, in favour of a landlord, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise evicting the tenant so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent, therefore, to the full extent allowable by this Act, unless it is satisfied- (a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months; or (b) ... ... ... ... ... (c) ... ... ... ... ... (d) ... ... ... ... ... (e) ... ... ... ... ... (f) That the tenant has renounced his character as such or denied he title of the landlord and the latter has not waived his right or condoned the conduct of the tenant; or 13(2) ... ... ... ... ... 13 (3). In a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (a) of sub-section (1) with or without any of the other grounds referred to in that sub-section, the court shall, 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 three months after filing of the written statement. and shall be before the framing of the issues, after hearing the parties and on the basis of material on record provisionally determine the amount of rent to be deposited in Court or paid to the landlord by the tenant. Such amount shall be calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid or was payable for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the month previous to that in which such determination is made together with interest on such amount calculated at the rate of six percent per annum from the date when any such amount was payable upto the date of determination. Provided that while determining the amount under this sub-section, the court shall not take into account the amount of rent which was barred by limitation on the date of the filing of the suit. (4) The tenant shall deposit in court or pay to the landlord the amount determined by the court under sub-section (3) within fifteen days from the date of such determination or within such further time, not exceeding three months, as may be extended by the court. The tenant shall also continue to deposit in court or pay to the landlord month by month the monthly rent subsequent to the period upto which determination has been made, by the fifteenth of each succeeding month or within such further time, not exceeding fifteen days, as may be extended by the court, at the monthly rate at which the rent was determined by court under sub-section (3). (5) if tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in sub-section (4) on the date or within the time specified therein the court shall order the defence against eviction to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit. (6) If a tenant make deposit or payment as required by sub- section (4) no decree for eviction on the ground specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall be passed by the court against him. provided that a tenant shall not be entitled to any relief under this sub-section, if having obtained such benefit or benefits under Section 13-A in respect of any such accommodation if he again makes a default in the payment of rent of that accommodation for months. provided that a tenant shall not be entitled to any relief under this sub-section, if having obtained such benefit or benefits under Section 13-A in respect of any such accommodation if he again makes a default in the payment of rent of that accommodation for months. (7) If in any suit referred to in sub-section (3), there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the court shall decide the dispute finally at the time of decision of the suit and may, at that time, pass such orders regarding costs or interest, having regard to the circumstances of the case, it deems fit." 10. Shri Virendra Bandhu, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submitted that in a suit for eviction on the ground of default with or without any of the grounds, it is obligatory for the court to determine provisional rent on the basis of the material on record to be deposited in court or paid to the landlord after hearing the parties. Such determination is required to be made on the first date of hearing or any other date as the court may fixed in this behalf but the date shall not be more than 3 months after filing of the written statement and it shall be before the framing of the issues. Shri Virendra Bandhu submitted that the Act is a piece of beneficial legislation for the tenants. If the rent is determined under sub-section (3) provisionally to be paid by the tenant to the landlord or deposited in court as required under sub-section (4) no decree for eviction on the ground of default, can be passed by the court against the tenant under sub-section (6) and the only consequence of failure, to. deposit or pay rent as provided in sub-section (4) on the date or within the time prescribed therein is that the court shall order the defence against eviction to be struck out and the court shall proceed with the hearing of the suit. The defence against the eviction under the Act can only be struck out and not the general defence. The question regarding the existence of relationship of landlord and the tenant shall be tried by the court and if the same question is decided in favour of the tenant, the plaintiff would be non-suited. The defence against the eviction under the Act can only be struck out and not the general defence. The question regarding the existence of relationship of landlord and the tenant shall be tried by the court and if the same question is decided in favour of the tenant, the plaintiff would be non-suited. If it is decided in favour of the landlord by holding that there exists any relationship of landlord and tenant, the tenant would run the risk of non-compliance of sub- sec. (4). Thus, according to shri Virendra Bandhu, it is in the interest of the tenant that there should be provisional determination of rent due and the same should be paid or deposited by him under sub-section (4). he submitted that sub-section (3) makes no exception and the duty is cast on the court to determine the rent on the basis of material on record and sub-section (3) nowhere envisages or contemplates to make an enquiry or try the issue relating to the existing relationship of landlord and tenant in a summary or final manner, first, before determining the amount of rent provisionally. 11. Reliance was placed by Shri Virendra Bandhu, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner on the decision of Ganesh Narain's case (supra). S.K.Mal Lodha, J. analysed the provision of sub- section (3) of Section 13 of the Act, in Para 7 of the judgment and observed that the averment of the plaintiff that the defendant is his tenant, is a material proposition of fact, which has been denied by the defendant and, therefore, this will form a subject-matter of one of the issues, which is to be framed by the trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. This issue is to be decided after trial. It was further observed that for the determination of the amount of rent and interest under Section 13(3) of the Act, the only condition contemplated is that, the suit for eviction should be based on the ground set forth in clause (a) of sub-sec.(1) wit or without any other grounds referred to in that sub-section. It was further observed that for the determination of the amount of rent and interest under Section 13(3) of the Act, the only condition contemplated is that, the suit for eviction should be based on the ground set forth in clause (a) of sub-sec.(1) wit or without any other grounds referred to in that sub-section. It was further observed that once this averment in the plaint is there that the tenant-defendant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months, section 13(3) will come into play and it is incumbent on the court to determine the amount of rent and interest either on the first date of hearing or on any other date or within the time as provided in Section 13(3) of the Act. It was also observed that the manner and mode of the determination of the amounts have been laid down in this sub-section. It has been provided that after hearing the parties and on the basis of the material on record, the court shall provisionally determine the amount of rent to be deposited in court or paid to the landlord by the tenant and the amount of rent is to be calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid or was payable in respect of the period for which the tenant may have made default inclusive of the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the month previous to that in which the determination is made. Emphasis was made on the expressions provisionally determined. Thus, the determination under Section 13(3) of the Act is 'tentative' 'temporary' or 'for the time being'. The learned Judge also considered the expression "first date of hearing" that this term occurs under O.X. Rr.1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code, O.XIII, r.1 and O.XIV r. 1, CPC. The learned Judge concluded that the first date of hearing of the suit clearly extends at least upto the first date of hearing referred to in O.XIII, r. 1,CPC. and in this context, the learned Judge observed that as the determination under section 13(3) of the Act is to be made not beyond three months from the date of the filing of the written statement and before the settlement of the issues and as such, no enquiry much less the summary enquiry is contemplated for that purpose. and in this context, the learned Judge observed that as the determination under section 13(3) of the Act is to be made not beyond three months from the date of the filing of the written statement and before the settlement of the issues and as such, no enquiry much less the summary enquiry is contemplated for that purpose. It was further observed that on the basis of the averments in the plaint if the court is satisfied that the suit for eviction is based on the ground set forth in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act, the court is required to determine the amount of rent and interest in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of the Act. The learned Judge further proceeded to observe that the determination of rent is to be made merely on the basis of material placed on record upto that stage by the parties. The determination so made is provisional in character and it does not affect the final rights of the parties. If the learned Judge means to say that solely on the basis of the averment made in the plaint, it shall be taken that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant and the provisional determination is to be made only in respect of the amount of rent on the basis of the material on record, then the question would need deeper examination and if the learned Judge means to say that the determination is also to be made regarding the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant on the basis of the material on record followed by the consequential order of determination of net due or determine that no rent is due as there does not exist any relationship of landlord and tenant, in that situation, issue regarding the existence of any relationship of landlord and tenant shall be tried and decided in the suit and consequences shall follow in accordance with the decision of that issue. 12. The learned Judge considered and relied on the decisions in Om Prakash Gupta v. Ratansingh, 1964(1) SCR 259 , Inderlal Balkiram v. Mahngi Bai Imratlal, AIR 1967 MP 163 and Mahbir Ram v. Shiv Shanker Prasad, AIR 1968 pat. 415 for the view taken by him. 12. The learned Judge considered and relied on the decisions in Om Prakash Gupta v. Ratansingh, 1964(1) SCR 259 , Inderlal Balkiram v. Mahngi Bai Imratlal, AIR 1967 MP 163 and Mahbir Ram v. Shiv Shanker Prasad, AIR 1968 pat. 415 for the view taken by him. He then concluded that "having regard to the provisions of Section 13(3) and Section 13(4) of the Act and after considering the three cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner, I am clearly of the opinion that in a suit for eviction based on the ground set forth in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act, with or without any other grounds referred to in that, before determining the amount of rent or interest as-contemplated by Section 13(3) in case of denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the defendant, it is not necessary for the court to hold an enquiry much less a summary enquiry for first deciding the question of relationship of landlord and tenant. Section 13(3) becomes applicable when the condition therein is satisfied even before the determination of the question whether the defendant is a tenant. The learned Judge distinguished the case of Naneshah v. Ram Kumar (supra) on the ground that, that was rendered under Section 13(4) (Old), which clearly says that if on or before the date so fixed for payment, the tenant deposits in court the aggregate of such amount, the suit shall be dismissed and the sum so deposited shall be paid to the landlord. Section 13(5) (Old) provided for striking out the defence of the tenant on the happening of the contingency mentioned in that sub-section. S.K.Mal Lodha, J. stated that in that context it was observed by the learned Judge deciding Naneshah's case (supra) that the court cannot pass an order in favour of the person, who is not proved to be a landlord, in other words, against a person who is not proved to be a tenant. 13. Mr. Bhandari, on the other hand, submitted that the Act is, applicable only when there exists relationship of landlord and tenant. When the relationship itself does not exist, no provision of the Act, would apply. 13. Mr. Bhandari, on the other hand, submitted that the Act is, applicable only when there exists relationship of landlord and tenant. When the relationship itself does not exist, no provision of the Act, would apply. The grounds of evictions are set forth in Section 13 and this section can be pressed into service only when there is a rural relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties. The determination of rent is for payment to the landlord by the tenant. When the tenant expressly denies that the plaintiff is his landlord, no determination can be made on the basis of any assumption of relationship of landlord and tenant. The jurisdictional fact is to be established first. In case, the Jurisdictional fact is not established, the court will have no jurisdiction to determine the amount of rent even provisionally. The definition of expression "landlord" is very wide under Section 3(iii) of the Act and the matter needs consideration in the light of the wider definition of the expression 'landlord'. According to the definition, the expression 'landlord' means any person, who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent if the premises were let to a tenant, it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant. It is urged that if the tenant has paid rent to his actual landlord and if a stranger having no privity with the tenant files a suit. the tenant cannot be ordered to deposit the amount of rent in court. The matter may be tested from this aspect as well. If several suits for eviction are filed by the heirs and successors of the landlord claiming exclusive right to maintain the suit, is the court bound to determine provisional rent in every suit ? or can the tenant be ordered to deposit rent in every suit or if he deposits rent under the orders of the court in the first suit, is he also bound to deposit rent in the second suit if filed much later to the determination and deposit of the amount of rent in the first suit ? or can the tenant be ordered to deposit rent in every suit or if he deposits rent under the orders of the court in the first suit, is he also bound to deposit rent in the second suit if filed much later to the determination and deposit of the amount of rent in the first suit ? Learned counsel submitted that there may be cases and cases with varying facts and situations and there may be bonafide dispute about the title of the landlord to sue for rent and eviction, it would cause great hardship to the tenant, if the court orders him to deposit rent over again. The provision of Section 13(3) should be so construed and interpreted that the court may be clothed with the power to consider the jural relationship of landlord and tenant, prima facie, and thereafter to determine the amount of rent under Section 13(3) of the Act. It is urged that in the case of Ganesh Narain v. Ranchhore Dass (supra), the learned Judge examined the question of relationship of landlord and tenant in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of the material on record in para 10 of the judgment. The learned counsel referred to some case law in support of his submissions. 14. The whole question is as to how the provision of Section 13(3) of the Act should be interpreted or should be given effect to when there is a dispute between the parties regarding the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant. It may be stated that sub-section (3) and sub-section (4) of Section 13 were substituted by the Rajasthan Ordinance No. 26 of 1975 replaced by the Rajasthan Amending Act No.14 of 1976. One of the grounds of eviction as mentioned in Clause (f) of Section 13 is, denial of the title of the landlord by the tenant or renouncing of his character as tenant. It can be said that the legislature had in- view that in a suit for eviction based on the ground of default with or without any ground for eviction, the defendant may raise the plea that the plaintiff is not his landlord. If the legislature intended that when such a plea is raised, the plea has to be decided first, then the legislature would have made a provision to that effect. If the legislature intended that when such a plea is raised, the plea has to be decided first, then the legislature would have made a provision to that effect. Instead, the legislature made a provision for determination of amount of rent provisionally on the basis of the material on record after hearing the parties within the time specified in sub-section (3). From the time specified in sub-section (3), it would appear that such determination has to be made after filing of the written statement and before framing of the issues. The determination of the amount of rent provisionally as provided in Section 13(3) would necessarily mean by implication that the court should first look to the respective cases of the parties and, prima facie, find as to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant. After such examination of the case, the court may proceed to determine the amount of rent due provisionally, if it finds that there exists relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties. If prima facie it is not found that there exists any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the question of determination of rent provisionally would not arise. When the legislature has provided that the parties have to be heard and material on record has to be considered and thereafter the amount of rent has to be determined, this shows that the court has to be satisfied about the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The parties are free to produce affidavits and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. Even the parties may ask the deponents to be cross-examined by them and the parties may be an application for recording of the statements of the parties under OX, r. 1 CPC. Before framing of the issues, these proceedings can be drawn. Having regard to the material so brought on record, the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties can be examined by the court, prima facie. On viewing the matter, prima facie, in this respect the court may proceed to act under Section 13(3) as it may think fit. Having regard to the material so brought on record, the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties can be examined by the court, prima facie. On viewing the matter, prima facie, in this respect the court may proceed to act under Section 13(3) as it may think fit. It is also significant to note that this knowledge can be presumed on the part of the legislature as to what was the law obtaining prior to the substitution of sub-section (3) and sub- sec (4) of Section 13 in 1975 and it can be presumed that the legislature was also well-aware of the decision in Naneshah v. Ramkumar (supra), wherein, it was held that before sub-section (5), as it existed by that time, can be applied, the person against whom an order is to be made should be proved to be a tenant. We are unable to persuade ourselves to adopt the view that the court has to pass an order determining the amount of rent provisionally under Section 13(3) without even, prima facie, satisfying itself that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant. The jurisdiction to determine the amount of rent under Section 13(3) in our opinion, can be assumed by the court only when the court is prima facie satisfied about the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. and not otherwise. However, we agree with the view taken in Ganesh Narain's case (supra) that sub-section (3) does not envisage holding of any enquiry for determination of the question of relationship of landlord and tenant. This question shall be tried as an issue in the suit itself but we are unable to agree with the view taken in Ganesh Narain's case (supra) that determination of the amount of rent can be made by the court under Section 13(3), if the court is satisfied solely on the basis of the averments made in the plaint to the effect that it is a suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent as provided in Section 13(1) (a). It is true that the fact situation contemplated in sub-section (3) of Section 13 is that it should be a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (a) of sub-section (1) with or without any other ground. It is true that the fact situation contemplated in sub-section (3) of Section 13 is that it should be a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (a) of sub-section (1) with or without any other ground. Even if such a fact situation is there i.e. the suit for eviction is based on the ground under section 13 (1) (a), still, the plea of the defendant denying the relationship of landlord and tenant, cannot be ignored altogether for the purpose of determination of the amount of rent due as provided in Section 13(3) of the Act. 15. However, according to the definition of the word landlord', one who is entitled to receive rent is a landlord and one who is receiving rent is also a landlord. If one who is receiving rent not on his own account but on behalf of the person, who is entitled to receive rent, the tenant cannot be ordered to pay rent over again to the person entitled, if the same has been paid to some one else, who has been receiving rent as his agent. All this should go into consideration of the court acting under Section 13(3) of the Act. 16. The object of Section 13(3) of the Act is to provide benefit to the tenant, when the suit for eviction is, based on the ground specified in Section 13 (1) (a). But where the tenant has paid rent to the person actually receiving rent, such a tenant should not be penalised by directing him to pay rent over again, which he has already paid earlier to the person receiving rent not on his own account. 17. We may now examine the case law relied on by the parties. 18. In Om Prakash Gupta v. Rattansingh and another (1964(1) SCR 259) , eviction of the tenant was sought on the ground of default. The suit was resisted on the ground that there exists any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. However, the tenant was directed to deposit the arrears of rent and also future rent. The landlord applied under Section 15(7) of the Act for striking out the defence as compliance of the order directing him to deposit the rent, was not made. The defence was struck off and ex parte decree for eviction was passed. However, the tenant was directed to deposit the arrears of rent and also future rent. The landlord applied under Section 15(7) of the Act for striking out the defence as compliance of the order directing him to deposit the rent, was not made. The defence was struck off and ex parte decree for eviction was passed. An appeal was preferred against the order of striking out the defence but the same was dismissed. No further appeal was taken to the High Court. Against the decree of eviction, the appeal was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal as well as by the High Court. In appeal by Special Leave before the Supreme Court, the contention was raised that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction as the tenant has denied the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that if a person move a Controller for eviction of a person on the ground that he is a tenant who had by his acts or omissions, made himself liable to be evicted on any one of the grounds for eviction, and if the tenant denies that the plaintiff is the landlord, the controller has to decide the question whether there was a relationship of landlord and tenant, If the Controller decides that there is no such relationship the proceeding has to be terminated without deciding the main question in controversy namely; the question of eviction. If on the other hand, the Controller comes to the opposite conclusion and holds that the person seeking eviction was the landlord and the person in possession was the tenant, the proceedings have to go on. Their Lordships further observed that now, proceedings under Section 15 are primarily meant for the benefit of the tenant, and the section authorises the Controller after given the parties an opportunity of being heard to make an order directing the tenant to pay the amount found on calculation to be due to the landlord or to deposit it with the Controller, within one month of the date of the order. It would appear from the above observations that the question whether the appellant was a tenant or not can be gone into by the Rent Controller, therefore, the order for the arrears of rent to be deposited, was passed under Section 15(1) and the Rent Controller made the order under sub- sec. It would appear from the above observations that the question whether the appellant was a tenant or not can be gone into by the Rent Controller, therefore, the order for the arrears of rent to be deposited, was passed under Section 15(1) and the Rent Controller made the order under sub- sec. (7) of Section 15 striking out the defence. It may be stated that their Lordships of the Supreme Court had taken into account the conduct of the tenant. The tenant did not walk out of the proceedings. Instead of that he took active steps to get the protection against eviction afforded by the Act by having an order passed by the Controller giving him a locus poenitentiae by allowing further time to make the deposit of rent outstanding against him. Their Lordships further held that the Controller therefore, must be taken to have decided that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and secondly; that the tenant was entitled to the protection under the Act. It may be stated that the Delhi Rent Control Act did not in terms authorise the authorities under the Act to determine finally the question of the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Act proceeds on the assumption that there is such a relationship. If the relationship is denied, the authorities under the Act have to determine that question also because a simple denial of the relationship cannot oust the jurisdiction of the Tribunals under the Act. From the observations of the Supreme Court, it cannot be taken that the question of the relationship of landlord and tenant is not required to be considered at all. It has to be considered and when an order is passed, it will be deemed that the question has been considered. This authority, in our opinion, does not lay down the law that the plea of the tenant denying the relationship of landlord and tenant, is not to be taken into consideration and determination of the amount of rent under Section 13 can be solely based on the averments made in the plaint to find out as to whether, the suit for eviction is filed on the ground under Section 13(1)(a) with or without any other ground or not. 19. In the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Mahabir Ram v. Shiv Shanker Prasad ( AIR 1968 Pat. 19. In the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Mahabir Ram v. Shiv Shanker Prasad ( AIR 1968 Pat. 415 ) , the question that arose for consideration was about the applicability of Section 11A of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (Act No. 3 of 1947), when the tenant raises the question of title. Section 11A made a provision for depositing the rent by the tenant in a suit for ejectment. This contention was negatived that where the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied, no order could be passed under Section 11A directing the defendant to make deposit of the rent. It was observed that if the contention were to be accepted, then the mere denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant would make the provisions of Section 1 1A nugatory and the jurisdiction of the court to pass an order under that section, would be ousted. Such on interpretation of the provisions of Section 11A can not be accepted. Tarkeshwarnath, J. speaking for the Court, further observed as under : "In my opinion, the correct procedure for a court to adopt would be that it should tentatively examine the materials available on record and determine whether the denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the defendant or a dispute raised by him with regard to the title of the plaintiff was bona fide or a mere pretence and without any merit. If the court finds that the said denial is merely for the sake of denial and that there was no substance in that denial the court should proceed to make an order for deposit of rent if the other conditions laid down in that section are fulfilled." It was further observed as under:- "I am accordingly of the view that the questions arising under Section 11A have to be determined at that stage for the purpose of passing an order under that section and the same questions may have to be gone into finally at the time of trial, but that would be no bar to a tentative determination of the question of relationship of landlord and tenant at the earlier stage when the provisions of Section 11A are resorted to by the landlord." 20. From the above observations, it would appear that for taking action under Section 11A, the tentative determination of relationship of landlord and tenant is necessary and that can be made on the basis of material available on record upto that stage. 21. This Full Bench decision has been followed in Mani Lal Choudhary v. Khetra Kinkar Samanta, AIR 1973 Pat. 181 and reliance was also placed in the said decision of Manilal Choudhary on Parbati Kueri v. Suganchand Hain and others, AIR 1967 Pat. 415 . 22. The authority, which may lend support to the plaintiff-petitioner is Inderlal Balkiram v. Mahngi Bai Imratlal & others ( AIR 1967 MP 163 ) . The Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court considered the language of Section 13 and observed that the word 'tenant' used in Section 13(1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act means nothing more than the defendant. It does not imply a defendant, who has been found to be a tenant by the Court. It was observed that the court is not bound to determine whether the defendant who denies title in the plaintiff is a tenant under the plaintiff before applying the provisions of Section 13 of the Act to the defendant. Section 13(1) made a provision for depositing the rent in court or paying the same to the landlord when the suit and proceedings for eviction is instituted by the landlord on any of the grounds referred to in Section 12. It was observed that the opening words of Section 13(1) are significant and clearly indicate that once such a suit is instituted, the provisions of Section 13(1) operate against the defendant and that the Court acquires jurisdiction to deal with any question arising under Section 13, no matter whether the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted or denied by the defendant. It was also laid down that in any suit for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 12, Section 13 becomes applicable even before the determination of the question whether the defendant is a tenant, is clinched by sub-section (4) and (6) of Section 13, which provide for the defence against eviction to be struck out. It was also laid down that in any suit for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 12, Section 13 becomes applicable even before the determination of the question whether the defendant is a tenant, is clinched by sub-section (4) and (6) of Section 13, which provide for the defence against eviction to be struck out. In para 7 of the judgment, the object and purpose of Section 13 was also considered and it was held that a finding by the court that the defendant is a tenant is not necessary for the operation of section 13(1) or for the exercise of the powers conferred on the court by the various sub-sections of Section 13. The Division Bench agreed with the Single Bench decision of M. P. High Court referred to in para 9 and they did not agree with the contrary view taken in the other Single Bench decisions mentioned in paras 10 and 11 of the judgment. The Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in D. R. Gellatly v. J. R. W. Cannon, A.I.R. 1953 Cal. 409 , was distinguished on the ground that the provisions of Section 14 of the West Bengal Premises Rent.Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 differ altogether from the provisions of Section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. A contrary view expressed by the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in Jamini Khan v. Dhirendra Nath Kundu, 91 Cal. L. J. 287 = AIR 1953 Cal. 762 was noted. 23. It may be stated that the language of the provisions of Section 13(3) of the Act, in our opinion, is somewhat different from the language of Section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Act. The rent is required to be determined provisionally by the court under the Rajasthan Act on the basis of the material on record and after hearing the parties. Such a provision, as already expressed, implies that the pleadings and material on record have to be considered and thereafter the rent can provisionally be determined only when it is found prima facie that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant. 24. Shri Virendra Bhandhu placed reliance on Om Prakash & others v. Ram Sarup and Radha Bhoparai v. Atma Ram . 24. Shri Virendra Bhandhu placed reliance on Om Prakash & others v. Ram Sarup and Radha Bhoparai v. Atma Ram . In the latter case, it has been observed that the owner of the building is entitled to receive rent as landlord and the mere fact that the tenant was inducted by some one else on his behalf does not mean that the owner is not landlord. In the present case, on the material on record, the court will have to see as to whether the plaintiff can maintain the suit as landlord and whether there is any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In the first case i.e. Om Prakash & others v. Ram Sarup (supra), the tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and there was no rent-note. It was observed that even in the absence of any rent-note, it can be proved that there was relationship of landlord and tenant. Both these cases are not the cases on the point in issue. 25. Reference was also made by Shri Virendra Bandhu, learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner to a Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Ranjit Kumar Dey v. Smt. Bhupabala Mira . A suit for ejectment was filed on the ground of default in payment of rent. Under Section 17(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, the defendant was required to deposit the rent in court or to pay to the landlord within one month of the service of the writ of summons on him, amount of rent in arrears with interest and also to continue to deposit or pay month by month, the amount of current rent and on his failure to do so, the Court under Section 17(3) of the Act has to strike out his defence against the delivery of possession. Within the period of one month, the defendant filed an application in the trial court contending that he was never a tenant under the plaintiff but was occupying the suit premises as a co-sharer of the plaintiff and prayed that Section 17 of the Act of 1956 is not applicable to his case. In that case, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 17(2). In that case, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 17(2). However, that application was not pressed by the plaintiff, so, the court ordered that the issue regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant would be decided along with the other issues at the trial. The suit was decreed. Relying on the view taken by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Biswanath v. Anngpurna, 1965 CWN 149 , approving the earlier Single Judge decision in Ganesh vs. Manmatha, 63 CWN 26 that a dispute as to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was also "a dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant" within the meaning of Section 17F) of the Act and in the latter Division Bench decision in Upendra Nath v. Sasthi , it was held that the court was obligated to decide that dispute at an earlier stage and it committed an error of law in deferring the decision at the time of final hearing. It was urged on behalf of the defendant that even if such dispute which was to be decided before hearing, was decided against the defendant and he was held to be a tenant, the defendant would have been entitled to deposit the entire rent as determined and in that case, under Section 17(4), no decree for eviction could be passed against him on the ground of default. Although on literal construction, it would not have been possible to hold that any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, stricto sensu is a dispute relating to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant but a purposive approach was adopted of Section 17(2) and it was observed that if eventually, the defendant is found to be a tenant, he would come within the protective provisions of Section 17. It would appear that the question, which has been considered in this decision, is, as to whether the defendant who has disputed relationship of landlord and tenant, after trial of this issue first, if found to be a tenant, whether he can seek protection under the provisions of Section 17. We shall be considering this aspect as to whether the tenant can seek protection of the provisions of Section 13(3) and 13(4) if it if found on trial that the defendant is a tenant of the plaintiff. We shall be considering this aspect as to whether the tenant can seek protection of the provisions of Section 13(3) and 13(4) if it if found on trial that the defendant is a tenant of the plaintiff. Although, prima facie, it was not found by the court within the time as contemplated under Section 13(3) that the defendant is a tenant and as a result thereof, no determination of the amount of rent can be made provisionally under Section 13(3) of the Act. 26. On behalf of the defendant-respondent, Shri Ajeet Bhandari referred to a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chagganlal and others v. Narsingh Pershad, AIR 1973 AP 1 . The question referred to the Full Bench was "where the relationship of landlord and tenant is in dispute, whether a summary enquiry can be made under Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 and orders for deposit of rent be passed under Section 11(1) of the Act." The Full Bench answered the question in the negative and held that "Sec. 11 is applicable not only to cases where the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted but also to cases where such relationship is denied. It was further held that for the purpose of passing orders under Section 11 of the Act when the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied, the Rent Controller must determine that question finally by making a regular enquiry and not provisionally by making a summary enquiry before assuming jurisdiction in the matter and pass orders and such a determination will be the decision in the main eviction petition itself." Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Act made a provision for payment of rent during the pendency of the proceedings of eviction under Section 10. It was provided that no tenant against whom the application is made under Section 10, shall be entitled to contest the application or prefer an appeal under Section 20 against any order made by the Controller on application unless he has paid to the landlord or deposits with the Controller or the appellate authority, all arrears of rent due and continues to pay the rent which may subsequently become due until the termination of the proceedings before the Controller. sub-section (4) of Section 11 provided the consequences of failure to deposit the rent with the Controller. sub-section (4) of Section 11 provided the consequences of failure to deposit the rent with the Controller. If he fails to pay or deposit the rent, the Controller shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, and in case of dispute about the amount of rent to be deposited under Section 11(1), the question can be decided summarily under sub-section (3). It was observed that the Controller before whom a petition for eviction is filed, would get jurisdiction to deal with the matter only when there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Therefore, the question of relationship of landlord and tenant is a jurisdictional fact. Before any valid order can be passed either by the Rent Controller or by the appellate authority, that jurisdictional fact must exist. It was observed that if the controller decides that the denial of claim is bonafide and if such a finding is recorded, then, the landlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction of the tenant in Civil Court, which means eviction petition is not maintainable. It would appear that the decision or the view taken in this case turns on the provisions of Section 10 and 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Act. 27. In the Rajasthan Act, there are no provisions conferring the jurisdiction on the Rent Controller for trying the suit for eviction. Under Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Act, a duty is cast on the tenant to pay and deposit the rent due. If he wants to contest the application under Section 10 and consequence of failure to pay or deposit the rent is, that by an order, the tenant can be directed to put the landlord in possession of the building. In the light of these provisions, it was held that the question of relationship of landlord and tenant must be determined by making a regular enquiry. 28. As already considered above, under Section 13(3), whatever material is on record and after hearing the parties, before framing of issues, the question of relationship of landlord and tenant should be provisionally examined and the court is required to pass an order according to the prima facie view formed by it. 29. 28. As already considered above, under Section 13(3), whatever material is on record and after hearing the parties, before framing of issues, the question of relationship of landlord and tenant should be provisionally examined and the court is required to pass an order according to the prima facie view formed by it. 29. Shri Ajeet Bhandari, further placed reliance on Anil Kumar Ghosh v. Manicklal Manna, 1981(2) RCJ 225 . It was held that the Munsif made a jurisdictional error in allowing the application under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 after expressly leaving the dispute as to relationship of landlord and tenant open. He acted illegally in passing such an order because unless he found that the defendant was the plaintiff's tenant, he could not strike out the defence under Section 17(3) of the Act. 30. Reliance was also placed by him on Kamalamma Muckannappa v. Panduranga Rao G. S., . It was held in this case that jurisdiction under Section 29 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 can be exercised when status of tenant is proved or admitted. In that case, the landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 21(1) proviso (a) and (h) and an application under Section 29(4) of the Act was filed by the landlord. The learned Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore directed that there was dispute of the respondent being a tenant and unless that dispute was resolved, no jurisdiction could be exercised under Section 29(4). It was observed in para 4 that the sine qua non for an application for interim relief under Section 29 of the Act is the acceptance of the status of the respondent as a tenant of the landlord. Unless that relationship is admitted or established, the jurisdiction under that section shall not be derived. If was further observed that the court may frame a preliminary issue and proceed to decide it. The decision arrived at has to be firm and final so that it is binding on the parties during the subsequent stages in the same proceedings. In that case, the jurisdiction under Section 29 shall only be exercised after such a decision is arrived at. 31. Shri Ajeet Bhandari also referred to a decision of Delhi High Court in Smt. Nirmal Jerath ant others v. Sadhuram Sharma and others, AIR 1973 Del. 65 . In that case, the jurisdiction under Section 29 shall only be exercised after such a decision is arrived at. 31. Shri Ajeet Bhandari also referred to a decision of Delhi High Court in Smt. Nirmal Jerath ant others v. Sadhuram Sharma and others, AIR 1973 Del. 65 . It was held in this case that ordinarily an order has to be passed under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, whenever an application for ejectment is brought on the ground of non-payment of rent, if there is no dispute concerning the relationship of landlord and tenant. But when such a dispute is raised, the Controller has on the preliminary question of jurisdiction to discover whether the relationship of landlord and tenant does exist. In that case, the landlord had died leaving behind two widows, a mother and a minor son and all the landlords did not join in moving an application for ejectment, so, it was observed that when very maintainability of the application is in question, it is very desirable that such a question should be ascertained before the order under Section 15(1) is passed. If it is found that it is a proper application, then, an order under Section 15(1) can be passed at that stage. 32. In Jahuri Sah and others v. Dwarika Prasad Jhunjhunwala and others, AIR 1967 SC 109 , it was held that under sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control, Act, 1947 the claim for eviction of tenant and recovery of possession of the building and also the claim of rent thereof had to be made before the Rent Controller alone and consequently, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for the enforcement of such claims, was ousted, but for the provision of this section to apply, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant should be that of a landlord and tenant. 33. 33. From the case low cited by Shri Ajeet Bhandari, it would appear that having regard to the provisions of the West Bengal Act, Bihar Act, Karnataka Act and Delhi Act, the question of relationship of landlord and tenant is required to be decided and Andhra Pradesh's view had gone to the extent that it has to be decided once for all finally and if the relationship of landlord and tenant is established, the order under the relevant provisions can be passed against the tenant for delivery of possession, if the payment of rent is not paid by the tenant and according to the Calcutta High Court's view, the tenant is further entitled to take shelter under the protective provision at that stage. It may be mentioned that these decisions turned on the language, object and purpose of the concerned provisions of the Acts. These decisions cannot be directly made applicable to the provisions of the Rajasthan Act, as the provisions of the Rajasthan Act differ from the provisions of the Acts prevailing in the aforesaid States. This Court is required to take the view in the light of the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Act having regard to the law, which was obtaining prior to the Ordinance No. 26 of 1975 as replaced by the Amending Act No. 14 of 1976. 34. The question may arise that on the basis of the material on record and after hearing the parties the court, prima facie, finds that there does not exist any relationship of landlord and tenant and consequently and it does not determine the amount of rent to be deposited in court or paid to the landlord and ultimately, the issue is decided in favour of the landlord and it is found that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant, is the tenant entitled to the protection under sub-section (6) of Section 13 ?, would it be open to him at that stage to make a prayer to the court that order under sub-section (3) of Section 13 may be passed, so that, he may make payment of rent or deposit the same. It may be mentioned that the stage of Section 13(3) is already over and there can be no determination of amount of rent under Section 13(3) of the Act. It may be mentioned that the stage of Section 13(3) is already over and there can be no determination of amount of rent under Section 13(3) of the Act. The issue of relationship of landlord and tenant is tried and in case, it is found that there exists any relationship of landlord and tenant, consequence of non-payment or non-deposit of rent shall follow. The applicability of sub- sec. (5) and (6) of Section 13 would arise when there is any order under sub-sec.(3) to be complied with under Section 13(4). When there is no order under sub-section (3), sub-section's (4) (5) and (6) would not be attracted and final decision of the suit would be based on the findings of the various issues framed in the suit including the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant and of default in payment of rent as contemplated under Section 13(a). The suit for rent and eviction based on the relationship of landlord and tenant would fail if the defendant is not found to be a tenant. 35. In the light of what we have discussed above, our answer to the question as re-framed, therefore, is as under "The provision of Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 would be attracted in a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) with or without any grounds referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act even if the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, is denied by the defendant. The court is required to act under Section 13(3) on the basis of the material on record and after hearing the parties, even on the question of relationship of, landlord and tenant. If it finds prima facie that there is any relationship of landlord and tenant, the determination of rent can be made provisionally and in case, it prima facie finds that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist, no rent is required to be determined under Section 13(3) of the Act." 36. The case will now go back to the learned Single Judge. It will be now for him to examine the matter in the light of the answer and to decide the case accordingly.Reference answered. *******