JUDGMENT 1. - This Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed under Section 22 of the Rajasthan. Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), against the order dated 11.12.1989, passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, under Section 13(3) of the Act. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that admittedly thedisputed house was owned by Smt. Ghanshyam Devi, who died on 15.3.1985. After the death of Smt. Ghanshyam Devi, the plaintiff respondent filed a suit for eviction against the appellant with the allegations that Smt. Ghanshyam Devi executed a will dated 26.11982, in his favour and as the part of the premises was taken by the appellant on rent in the year 1979, from Smt. Ghanshyam Devi, at the rate of Rs. 200/- p.m. and thereafter the rent was increased to Rs. 400/-, the appellant became his tenant. As the tenant committed default in the payment of rent, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction on several grounds. The defendant appellant filed his written statement & denied the allegation of the execution of the will in favour of the plaintiff-respondent It was alleged that Smt. Ghanshyam Devi had executed a will on 25.2.85, in his favour and as such he is the owner of the property and the plaintiff respondent has no right to file suit for eviction, against him. He further denied that the property was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- p.m. in the year 1979 and thereafter the rent was increased at the rate of Rs. 400/- p.m. He alleged that he was licensee of Smt. Ghanshyam Devi and after her death he became the full owner of the property by virtue of the will executed by Smt. Ghanshyam Devi in his favour. The trial court vide its order dated 11.12.89, determined the arrears of rent under Section 13(3) of the Act. Being aggrieved with the said order, the defendant appellant has come in appeal. 3. Mr. R.M. Lodha, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the judgment of this Court, reported in 1978 RLW 388 has been over ruled by a Division Bench of this Court in DB-CRP No. 79/1979. D/d. 20.9.1989. Smt. Tulsi v. Sacheha Nand , decided on 20th Sept., 1989, and as such, is not a good law. 3. Mr. R.M. Lodha, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the judgment of this Court, reported in 1978 RLW 388 has been over ruled by a Division Bench of this Court in DB-CRP No. 79/1979. D/d. 20.9.1989. Smt. Tulsi v. Sacheha Nand , decided on 20th Sept., 1989, and as such, is not a good law. He further argued that he never admitted the plaintiff his land lord but he claims to be the owner of the property as such the rent cannot be determined Under section 13 (3) of the Act. 4. On the other hand Mr. K.L. Saxena, counsel for the plaintiff-respondent argued that the question of relationship of landlord and tenant can not be decided at this stage. He further argued that from the material available on record, prima facie, it has been proved that the appellant is tenant of the respondent and as such the trial court was justified in determining the arrears of rent. 5. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, I am of the view that both the parties claimed ownership of the disputed property. Both have submitted wills in their favour and the wills are attested by the Notary Public. There is serious question to be tried in the suit as to who is the actual owner of the property. I am also of the view that when the defendant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and there is no material on record prima facie to show that there existed any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, rent under Section 13(3) of the Act can not be determined. But if there is some evidence to show the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the mere denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the tenant will not debar the Court from determining the rent under Section 13(3) of the Act. As said above, in the present case, there is nothing on the record to show that there ever existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and as such in the present case, rent can not be determined under Section 13(3) of the Act. 6. Consequently, I allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 11.12.1989, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, under Section 13(3) of the Act, determining the rent. 6. Consequently, I allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 11.12.1989, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, under Section 13(3) of the Act, determining the rent. It is made clear that if after trial, the Court comes to the conclusion that the denial was false on the part of the defendant, he would suffer the consequences in as much as he would deprive himself of the benefit of Section 13(6) of the aforesaid Act.Appeal Allowed. *******