JUDGMENT : 1. - This revision has been directed against the order dated 5.10.1990, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Neem-ka- thana, whereby he modified the order dated 2.5.1990, passed by learned Civil Judge, Neem-ka-thana-in proceedings under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. The brief facts for the decision of this revision are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the non-petitioner for eviction from the disputed shop, inter alia on the ground of default with the allegations that the non-petitioner took the disputed shop on rent from him and executed rent note on 5.1.1985, in his favour; that the non-petitioner paid rent to him upto December, 1985 and thereafter did not pay rent to him. Prior to the filing of the suit, the plaintiff served a notice on the non-petitioner through his counsel Shri K.N. Gupta. In this notice, the plain- tiff specifically stated that the defendant after taking the disputed shop on rent, executed a rent note in his favour on 5.1.85 and also paid rent upto December, 1985. The non-petitioner gave a reply of this notice through his counsel Mr. R.P. Gupta. In this reply, this fact has not been denied that the shop was taken on 5.1.1985, from the plaintiff and further that the defendant had executed rent note and paid the rent upto December, 1985. The case put by the defendant was that with the consent of the plaintiff, the defendant executed rent note in favour of the mother of the plaintiff and has been paying rent to her from 1.1.86 at the rate of Rs. 215/- p.m. The trial court vide its order dated 4.1.1988, determined the arrears of rent. The defendant non-petitioner filed a civil miscellaneous appeal, which was allowed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Neem-ka-thana and the case was remanded. The learned Additional District Judge was of the view that Smt. Umrao Devi, mother of the plaintiff filed an application under 0. 1 R. 10 C.P.C. for becoming a party in the case on the ground that she is the owner of the property. District Judge, Neem-ka-thana and the case was remanded. The learned Additional District Judge was of the view that Smt. Umrao Devi, mother of the plaintiff filed an application under 0. 1 R. 10 C.P.C. for becoming a party in the case on the ground that she is the owner of the property. After the remand of the case, the trial court vide its order dated 31.8.1988, rejected the application of Smt. Umrao Devi, submitted under O.1 R. 10 C.P.C. and later on vide order dated 2.1.1989, determined the arrears of rent under Section 13(3) of the Act. Against this order, the defendant filed an appeal, which was allowed by the said Court on 5.10.90, setting aside the order of the trial court and it was directed by learned Additional District Judge, Neem-ka-thana that the defendant has already paid rent from Jan. 1986 to September 30, 1990 to the mother of the plaintiff and as such he need not deposit the amount with the plaintiff. He further directed that in future the defendant will deposit rent under Section 19A in Court and the Court will open an account in bank or post office. The amount so deposited by the defendant will be given either to the plaintiff or his mother, who would be found to be entitled to the same. Against this order, the plaintiff petitioner has come in revision. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Mr. Mandhana, counsel for the plaintiff petitioners argued that the order of learned A.D.J. Neem-ka-thana, is perverse and is beyond his jurisdiction. He further argued that once relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, the Court was bound to determine arrears of rent under Section 13(3) of the Act and there was no option. He argued that when the application of the mother for impleading as a defendant was rejected there was no question of deciding her rights in the present case. He also argued that in a suit for eviction, title is irrelevant and in case relationship of landlord and tenant is not found to be proved, the suit cannot be decreed. He argued that the lower court further erred in ordering that the tenant will deposit rent in Court, which will be given to a party, who is found to be the owner of the property. He argued that the lower court further erred in ordering that the tenant will deposit rent in Court, which will be given to a party, who is found to be the owner of the property. He argued that the Court has no jurisdiction to pass such a order. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Gupta argued that the amount was paid to the mother of the plaintiff as the plaintiff advised the defendant to make he payment to his mother. Mr. Gupta argued that the property belonged to late Shri Bhuramal, who left a will in favour of Smt. Umrao Devi, mother of the plaintiff and as such she is entitled to recover rent. He further argued that the defendant has executed rent note in favour of Smt. Umrao Devi on 1.1.1986 and has been paying rent to her continuously. He argued that he cannot be directed to pay rent to both the persons. According to him there is a family dispute and both the parties want to collect rent from him and under such circumstances, his interest should be safeguarded. Mr. Gupta further argued that when third person claims title in a eviction suit, he is a proper party and his title should also be investigated in the suit. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on a judgment of this Court reported in Urban Improvement Trust v. Raj Kumari, and Mahavir Prasad v. Panchayat Sri Digamber Jain Mandir, 1987(1) RLR 264 : 1988(1) RLR 153 . 6. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties I am of the view that when it is not denied that at one time there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the Court is bound to determine rent under Section 13(3) of the Act. The Court has no jurisdiction to refuse determination. In the present case there was no dispute initially that the petitioner leased out the premises to the non-petitioner. No dispute was raised in the reply to the notice that the defendant executed rent note in favour of plaintiff and also paid rent upto December 1985 to the plaintiff. Subsequently, the defendant executed rent note in favour of mother. By executing subsequent rent note in favour of mother, the tenancy in favour of the petitioner cannot be determined. No dispute was raised in the reply to the notice that the defendant executed rent note in favour of plaintiff and also paid rent upto December 1985 to the plaintiff. Subsequently, the defendant executed rent note in favour of mother. By executing subsequent rent note in favour of mother, the tenancy in favour of the petitioner cannot be determined. The lower appellate court went beyond his jurisdiction by directing that the non-petitioner should not pay rent from 1.1.1986 to 30.9.90 to the plaintiff whereas it is an admitted fact that rent for this period was not paid to the plaintiff. The lower appellate court further went wrong in directing the defendant to deposit the rent in Court under section 19A of the Act and in further directing that the rent will be given to the party who is found to be the owner of the property. It seems that the lower appellate court did not consider at all the decisions of this Court wherein it has been held time and again that when a suit is based on relationship of landlord and tenant, and there is some evidence to show that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the party at some time the Court is bound to determine arrears of rent under Section 13(3) of the Act. In Mahavir Prasad's case (supra) it has been held by this Court as under: "For the purpose of applicability of Section 13(3), the only condition necessary is that the suit for eviction should be on the ground set-forth in clause (a) of sub-section (1) with or without any of the grounds." 7. In Radhey Shyam v. Parmanand, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous decided on March 27,1991 , this Court observed as under : "I am also of the view that when the defendant denies 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 cannot 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." 8. 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." 8. In the present case the application submitted by Smt. Umrao Devi under Order 1 R. 10 C.P.C. was also dismissed by the trial court. Under these circumstances, there was no question of deciding any title of Smt. Umrao Devi. Otherwise also in a suit for eviction based on relationship of landlord and tenant the question of title is immaterial and should not be gone into. The cases cited by Mr. Gupta are not relevant to the facts of the present case. The Full Bench of this Court has taken a view that in such cases title should not be gone into. In my view, the lower appellate court while deciding the appeal has gone beyond jurisdiction. The order passed by him is based on irrelevant consideration and consequently, I allow the revision, set-aside the order of learned Addl. District Judge, Neem-ka-thana, dated 5.10.1990, and restore the order of Civil Judge, Neem-ka- thana, dated 2/5-1-1990. 9. Mr. Gupta prays for some time for depositing the arrears of rent. Three months time is granted to the defendant for making payment to the plaintiff petitioner. The defendant will further continue to make monthly payment to the plaintiff in time. In case the plaintiff refuses to accept the amount, the amount will be deposited in his bank account. The plaintiff will supply bank account number to the defendant non-petitioner. It is, however, observed that in case the defendant has paid any amount to Smt. Umrao Devi, he is free to recover the 3. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 113/90 same. It is further observed that the trial court will not be influenced by any observation made in this order while deciding the suit.Revision allowed. *******