Judgment R.R. Yadav, J.-The present revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 15-2-1994 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, No. 2, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal (Order) No. 19/94 modifying the order dated 28-1-1994 passed by the learned Additional Munsif and Judl. Magistrate, No. 5 Jodhpur in Rent Case No. 481/93. 2. The respondent-landlord filed a civil suit against the petitioner-tenant alleging therein that the petitioner is a tenant in Shops Nos. 4 and 5 situated at Kheta Nadi, Mandore Road, Jodhpur owned by him. It has further been alleged that the petitioner-tenant stopped payment of monthly rent from July, 1992 and thus, he is defaulter under Section 13(l)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rajasthan Act No, 17 of 1950) and as such liable to be evicted from the aforesaid shops. It has also been alleged, by the respondent-landlord that one of the shops is required for philanthropic purpose and other is required for personal necessity. It has also been alleged that some material alterations in the shops have been made by the petitioner-tenant without the consent of the respondent-landlord and as such also the respondent-landlord is entitled to have vacant possession of the shops from the petitioner-tenant. The suit was also based on the nuisance created by the petitioner-tenant. 3. The petitioner-tenant filed a written statement alleging therein that he was always ready to pay the monthly rent and he tendered the rent every month but the respondent-landlord refused to accept the rent. The petitioner-tenant sent the amount of rent through Money Order which too was returned with a remark of ‘refusal’. It is further alleged that the petitioner-tenant served a notice upon the respondent-landlord asking him to disclose the name of the Bank and his Account Number, so that, the monthly rent of the said shops may be deposited in the Bank Account of the respondent-landlord. The landlord by registered letter disclosed the name of the Bank as welt as Account Number, whereupon the petitioner-tenant started depositing the amount of rent every month in the Bank Account of the respondent-landlord and presently no amount of rent is due against the petitioner-tenant. 4. Thetrial Court on 28-1-1994 determined the rent due provisionally and calculated interest thereon i.e. Rs. 13,110/-. 4. Thetrial Court on 28-1-1994 determined the rent due provisionally and calculated interest thereon i.e. Rs. 13,110/-. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner-tenant is liable to pay Rs. 589/-as interest due to his irregular payment. It was further found by the trial Court that Rs. 13,110/-had already been paid by the petitioner-tenant by way of deposit in the Bank Account of the respondent-landlord. 5. It is pertinent to mention here that after recording the aforesaid finding, learned trial Court directed to pay amount of interest i.e. Rs. 5 89/-to the respondent-landlord or deposit in the Bank Account within a period of 15 days and further continue to pay or deposit to the landlord month by month the monthly rent subsequent to the period up to which determination has been made by the 15th of each succeeding month. 6. The petitioner-tenant preferred an appeal against the decision dated 28-1-1994 to the Court of District Judge, Jodhpur which was transferred to the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, No. 2, Jodhpur for hearing and disposal. Learned Additional District Judge, No. 2, Jodhpur vide his order dated 15-2-1994 partly accepted the appeal and set side the order of determination of amount of interest which occurred due to irregular deposit in the Bank Account of the respondent-landlord but he affirmed the order of the trial Court regarding payment of future rent to the landlord month by month i.e. the monthly rent subsequent to the period up to which determination has been made by the fifteenth of each succeeding month. 7. The grievance of the petitioner-tenant in the instant revision petition is that the Courts-below have committed a jurisdictional error in directing to pay to the landlord month by month the monthly rent subsequent to the period up to which determination has been made by the 15th of each succeeding month. 8. 1 haveheard Mr. Kantilal Jasmatiya, learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the Judgment s passed by both the Courts below. 9. Theaforesaid argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable, inasmuch as, once the suit for eviction is filed against a tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent and the tenant put-forth his claim that there is no arrears of rent due against him. 9. Theaforesaid argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable, inasmuch as, once the suit for eviction is filed against a tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent and the tenant put-forth his claim that there is no arrears of rent due against him. Thus, in such a situation, lis between the landlord and the tenant cannot be decided unless the monthly rent is deter-’mined by the Court. In such rent-cases, the determination of monthly rent is a condition precedent to arrive at a correct conclusion as to whether a tenant has committed default in payment of rent and as to whether due to such default in payment of rent within the stipulated period of six months as contemplated under Sub-section (l)(a) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Act No. 17 of 1950, the landlord is entitled to obtain decree for eviction. In the instant case, both the Courts-below in a suit for eviction under Sub-section (l)(a) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Act No. 17 of 1950 have rightly determined the monthly rent of the 4 shops in question and had arrived at a correct conclusion that the tenant has not committed default in payment of rent and he had made payments of monthly rent in the Bank Account of the respondent-landlord. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the question of provisional determination of rent is incidentally involved and without provisional determination of monthly rent lis between the landlord and the tenant, cannot be decided. 10. In the present case, after determination of provisional rent under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Act No. 17 of 1950, the petitioner-tenant is under statutory obligation to continue to deposit amount of rent in Court or pay to the landlord-respondent month by month the monthly rent subsequent to the period up to which determination has been made by the 15th of each succeeding month. 11. My aforesaid view is fortified from the mandatory provision contemplated under Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Act No. 17 of 1950, which is reproduced below for ready reference: --“Section 13. 11. My aforesaid view is fortified from the mandatory provision contemplated under Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Act No. 17 of 1950, which is reproduced below for ready reference: --“Section 13. Eviction of tenants: -- (4) Thetenant 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 up to 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 the Court under Sub-section (3).” 12. Apart from the aforesaid discussion in my humble opinion, it is well to remember that the power of this Court under the amended Section 115, CPC is very limited and not to be exercised except in rarest of rare cases. However, point of law relating to the question ofjurisdiction which ultimately go to the root of the jurisdiction can be looked into. In my considered opinion, the amended Section 115, CPC is not meant for academic exercise whereby logical arguments white can be proved black and black can be proved white. Amended Section 115, CPC had been moulded and shaped by legislature to meet the needs and opinion of today for advancing material justice between the parties. 13. Ordinarily, mere illegality or irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction is no ground for interference under Section 115, CPC “if judicial conscience of the revisional Court is satisfied that material justice has been done between the parties, especially when point of law does not go to the root of the inherent jurisdictional error. 14. 13. Ordinarily, mere illegality or irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction is no ground for interference under Section 115, CPC “if judicial conscience of the revisional Court is satisfied that material justice has been done between the parties, especially when point of law does not go to the root of the inherent jurisdictional error. 14. In the present case, after determination of monthly rent under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Act No. 17 of 1950, both the Courts below have given direction to the petitioner-tenant to continue to deposit in Court or to the respondent-landlord month by month the monthly rent by the 15th of each succeeding month is eminently just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under amended Section 115, CPC. Thus, the present revision petition lacks merit and is dismissed at admission stage.