JUDGMENT 1. - This revision has been directed against the order dated 15.12.90, passed by learrted A.D). Neema Ka Thana, whereby he modified the order of learned M.J.M., Srimadhopur, passed under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises'(Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, (for short the Act). 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for eviction against the non-petitioner inter-alia on the ground of default. It was mentioned in the plaint that the disputed shop was taken by the non-petitioner on rent on 10.4.84 at the rate of Rs. 150/- p.m. and the non-petitioner executed a rent note, that the non-petitioner paid rent upto 11.2.86 but thereafter did not pay rent. The case of the non-petitioner before the trial court was that the whole shoe was taken on rent 03 Rs: 150/- p.m. but later on the shop was divided in two parts and one part was taken by the plaintiff from the defendant. The defendant non-petitioner further stated in his reply that the plaintiff-petitioner obtained his signature on a blank rent-note. His case is that he constructed a dividing wall in the shop and in the construction of that wall and shutter, he invested Rs. 4488.30 p. He prayed that determination can be made only at the rate of Rs. 75/- after adjusting Rs. 4,488.30 p. The trial court vide it order dated 15.12.90 determined the arrears of rent on the basis of rent-note. The trial court further held that as to whether the rent note is genuine or the signatures on it were obtained under the circumstances mentioned in the written statement will be decided in the main suit. It was further held by the learned trial court that there was no proof on record that the defendant invested Rs. 4,488.30 p. on raising of wall and fitting of shutter and as such this amount can not be adjusted at the time of determination of rent. The trial court fixed the case on 20.12.90 for determining the arrears of rent. Against this order, the defendant non-petitioner submitted miscellaneous appeal before the learned A.D.J. Neem Ka Thana, on 14.12.1990. He also submitted a stay application alongwith affidavits of Mr. Bhim Ram and Kishan Lal. The trial court fixed the case on 20.12.90 for determining the arrears of rent. Against this order, the defendant non-petitioner submitted miscellaneous appeal before the learned A.D.J. Neem Ka Thana, on 14.12.1990. He also submitted a stay application alongwith affidavits of Mr. Bhim Ram and Kishan Lal. The case was fixed for report on 15.12.90..0n 15.12.90, the learned A.D.J. without any notice to the plaintiff-petitioner allowed the stay application finally holding that the defendant non-petitioner will deposit Rs. 75/- p.m. only. He amended the order of learned trial court. The operative portion of the order reads as under:- " vihy o bl izkFkZuki= ds lHkh rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, ;g vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ vihykaV vk;Unk vkns'k rd 75@& :i;s izfrekg ds fglkc ls fdjk;k fookfnr ifjlj dk tek djkrk jgsxk v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa rFkk foHkktu ds ckjs esa tks [kpkZ gqvk mlds ckjs esa vihy ds fopkj.k ls le; vkns'k fn;k tkosxkA i{kdkjku dks lquk tkdjA rnuqlkj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 5-12-90 dks vkaf'kd :i ls ;g la'kks/ku fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fd;k tkrk gSA ftldh lwpuk vyx ls v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks Hksth tkosA nj[okLr ntZ jftLV~j felysfu;l gksA vizkFkhZ jsLiksUMsUV dks Hkh uksfVl tkjh gks ,oa bl ckcr uksV ntZ gksaA i=koyh vihy ds lkFk is'k gksA Qsly 'kqekj gks; " Against this order of learned A.D.J., Neem ka Thana, the plaintiff petitioner has come in revision. 3. I have heard Mr.D.P. Chadda, counsel for the plaintiff petitioner and Mr. S.K. Singh for the defendant-non-petitioner. It has been argued by Mr. Chadda that the appellate court. has no jurisdiction what-so-ever to amend the order of trial court without any notice to the petitioner. He further argued. that the trial court ordered for determination of the arrears of rent on the basis of rent note dated 10.4.1984, the signatures on which have been admitted by the defendant non-petitioner. Whether the document is genuine or has been executed under the circumstances mentioned by the defendant non-petitioner in his written statement has to be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit. He argued that the order of learned trial court is based on material on record and as such the appellate court had no jurisdiction what-so-ever to interfere in the order of trial court. He argued that the order of learned trial court is based on material on record and as such the appellate court had no jurisdiction what-so-ever to interfere in the order of trial court. He further argued that the trial court has not finally determined the arrears of tent, and 20.12.90 was fixed for the said purpose but prior to that the learned A.D.J. Neem Ka Thana, determined the arrears of rent vide order dated 15.12.90, which is absolutely without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Singh argued that the whole shop was leased out to the defendant non-petitioner at the rate of Rs. 150/- p.m. but later on the request of the plaintiff, it was divided in two parts. The defendant non-petitioner constructed a wall and also put a shutter in which he spent a sum of Rs. 4,488.30 p. He further argued that half shop was taken by the plaintiff and only half shop remained with the defendant and as such the order passed by the lower appellate court is perfectly justified and does not require any interference by this court. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties. I am of the view that the lower appellate court had no jurisdiction what-so-ever to amend the order of the trial court without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Further more the case of the petitioner was based on rent note, which was admittedly signed by the defendant. Further more, the case of the defendant in the reply was that from 10.4.84, he paid rent upto 11.2.86'at the rate of Rs. 150/-, in compulsion. Under sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act, the Court has to determine the arrears of rent on the basis of rent which was last paid. Under these circumstances, the order of lower appellate court, which was passed it out considering the material on record and also in the absence of the plaintiff petitioner is arbitrary one and deserves to be set-aside. 6. Consequently, I allow the revision, set-aside the order dated 15.12.90 passed by learned A.D.J. Neem Ka Thana, and direct the trial court to determine the arrears of rent in accordance with law, after hearing learned counsel for both the parties.Both the parties shall bear their own costs.A copy of this order be sent to both the lower courts.Revision Allowed. *******