JUDGMENT 1. (Oral)- This appeal has been directed against the order dated 4-3-1989, passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Kota, in Civil Suit No. 72/1986 (95/88), by which he determined the arrears of rent from 1st March, 1983 to 28th February, 1989, at the rate of Rs. 600/- p.m. The total amount of arrears of rent determined by the learned judge was Rs. 43,200/-. The learned Judge further determined interest on the said amount at the rate of 6% p.a. The interest amount comes to Rs. 7,776/-. Thus the total amount determined comes to Rs. 50,976/-. The learned Judge further directed the appellants to deposit the said amount within a period of 15 days and to deposit the monthly amount of rent at the rate of Rs. 600/- p.m. by 15th of next month. 2. Being aggrieved with the said order, the defendant appellants have preferred this miscellaneous appeal under Section 22 (1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants Shri Prem Asopa and learned counsel for the respondent Shri A. K. Gupta. It was argued by Shri Asopa that the learned Judge did not consider the affidavits submitted by his client and al-o receipts of rent given to his client by Shri Dharam Das, who was the authorised representative of the plaintiff. He submits that the plaintiff has been residing at Bombay and at his instructions, rent was paid to Shri Dharam Das, who gave him receipts of rent upto 1st June, 1985, at the rate of Rs. 210/-. He submits that the rent was agreed only at the rate Rs. 210/- p.m. He further submits that his client submitted an application before the trial court for summoning the account-books of the plaintiff alongwith Income-Tax Returns and also filed an application for production of Dharam Das in the Witness Box, but the trial court did not decide the application and in arbitrary way determined the arrears of rent. He further submits that learned Judge also did not consider the order of the Land and Building Officer, from which it is also apparent that the rent of the disputed premises was settled at Rs. 210/- p.m. 4. He further submits that learned Judge also did not consider the order of the Land and Building Officer, from which it is also apparent that the rent of the disputed premises was settled at Rs. 210/- p.m. 4. On the other hand, Shri Gupta, argued that the learned fudge, after considering the whole record including the rent-receipts, duly signed by the appellant Rizu Mai, determined the arrears of rent. He further submits that the determination of rent is provisional and not final and as such the appeal is not maintainable. He further submits that there is no question of prejudice to the appellants as the learned Judge will decide the actual rent while deciding the suit and as such the appellants cannot be said to have any grievance against the order pas ed by the learned trial court. 5. Section 13 (3) of the Act enjoins upon a Court to determine the provisional rent after considering the material on record. The lower court has considered the material placed by both the parties and after placing reliance on the rent-receipts submitted by the plaintiff, which are also signed by the defendant Rizu Mai, determined the arrears of rent. Mr. Asopa, counsel for the defendant appellants disputes the signatures of his client on the receipts but this matter has to be finally decided in the suit itself. Provisionally, the lower court has believed these receipts and determined the arrears of rent. Under these circumstances, in my view the order of the lower court cannot be interfered with at this stage. The lower court will finally decide the dispute at the time of decision of the suit and in case at that time it finds that any excess amount has been paid by the defendant-appellants, they will be entitled to get the interest on the excess amount at the rate of 15% p.a. from the plaintiff. 6. With these observations, the appeal is dismissed, but looking to the circumstances of the case, I allow the appellants a period of three months time to deposit the arrears of rent. The appellants will further deposit the arrears of rent upto date till the month of October, 1990 at the rate of Rs. 600/- p.m. within the aforesaid time. 7. Both the parties shall bear their own costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******