JUDGMENT 1. - Appeal No. 315 of 94 (1305 of 93 (Defect)) has been filed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Churu dated February 25, 1993 by which he has determined Rs. 1,62,000/- as rent from August 29, 1988 to February 28, 1993 @ Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,146/- as interest @ 6% thereon, total Rs. 1,64,146/- under Section 13(3), Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act) and directed the defendant-appellants to make their payment to the plaintiff- respondent within two months. The appeal No. 13 of 94 has been filed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Churu dated December 7, 1993 passed under Section 13(5) of the Act striking out the defence for not paying the said amount of Rs. 1,64,146/-. 2. The facts of the case giving rise to these appeals may be summarised thus. On August 29, 1988, the plaintiff let out her building situated at Railway Station, Churu to the defendants for their office on monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/-. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Churu determined the fair rent @ Rs. 3,000/- per month and accordingly issued fair rent certificate. The Director, Medical and Health Services, Jaipur accorded permission for the same. Budget was also sanctioned for the payment of rent at the said rate. In their written statement, the defendants admit that the suit premises has been taken on rent for their office purpose w.e.f. August 29, 1988 and no amount has been paid to the plaintiff towards rent so far. They have further averred that the rent was wrongly determined @ Rs. 3,000/- per month. The Collector, Churu ordered for fresh determination of rent and it was determined @ Rs. 1,290/- per month. By its order dated February 25, 1993, the trial court determined the amount of rent and interest as said above. The amount so determined was not paid and accordingly, the trial court struck out the defence by its order dated December 7, 1993. 3. An application for the condonation of delay of 13 days has been filed along with the appeal challenging the order dated February 25, 1993. For reasons mentioned in the application and accompanying affidavit the delay is condoned. 4. 3. An application for the condonation of delay of 13 days has been filed along with the appeal challenging the order dated February 25, 1993. For reasons mentioned in the application and accompanying affidavit the delay is condoned. 4. It has been contended by the learned Government Advocate that the plaintiff constructed a house after obtaining loan in MIGH scheme for residential purpose, this fact was concealed by her when the Public Works Department Authorities determined the rent at the said rate of Rs. 3,000/, the Collector, Churu ordered for inquiry and fresh determination of rent and then it was determined @ Rs. 1,290/- per month. He further contended that thereafter the plaintiff was requested to submit receipt and obtain rent @ Rs. 1,290/- but she did not produce any receipt. He also contended that the learned Additional District Judge did not take into consideration these facts and seriously erred to determine the amount of Rs. 1,64,146/- under Section 13(3) of the Act and to strike out its defence by his order dated February 25, 1993 and December 7, 1993 challenged in these appeals. 5. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondent that after having agreed to pay rent @ Rs. 3,000/- per month, it could not be unilaterally reduced and the defendants were and are bound to make payment of the rent of the demised premises @ Rs. 3,000/- per month. He also contended that the trial court had no option but to strike out the defence as not a single pie was paid towards rent by the defendants. 6. There is no substance in any of these appeals. Admittedly, the suit premises was taken on rent by the defendants from the plaintiff on monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/- & P.W.D. authorities also determined fair rent @ Rs. 3,000/- per month. After the parties have agreed to pay rent @ Rs. 3,000/-, it could not be reduced unilaterally by the defendants. Section 5 of the Act runs as under:- "5. 3,000/- & P.W.D. authorities also determined fair rent @ Rs. 3,000/- per month. After the parties have agreed to pay rent @ Rs. 3,000/-, it could not be reduced unilaterally by the defendants. Section 5 of the Act runs as under:- "5. Rent to be as agreed - The rent payable for any premises situated within the areas to which this Act extends for the time being shall, subject to other provisions thereof, be ordinarily such, as may be agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant." If a tenant claims that the agreed rent is excessive, he may institute a suit under Section 6 of the Act for fixation of standard rent. Admittedly, this was not done by the defendants. There was and is no option to the defendants but to pay rent of the suit premises at the agreed rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month. The learned Additional District Judge, Churu rightly determined the amount of rent under Section 13(3) of the Act @ Rs. 3,000/- per month. There is no infirmity in the order dated February 25, 1993 determining Rs. 1,62,000/- as rent of the period from August 29, 1988 to February 28, 1993 and Rs. 2,146/- as interest @ 6% p.a. Thus there is no force, in the appeal challenging this order. 7. The learned Additional District Judge, Churu has not correctly observed in his order dated December 7, 1993 that the provisions of Section 13(5) of the Act are mandatory. He has erred to strike out the defence. It has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Vishan Das v. Savitri, 1988(1) RLR 1, that these provisions are directory in nature. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity is given to the defendants to make payment of the said amount of Rs. 1,64,146/- and also the amount of rent at the agreed rate of @ Rs. 3,000/- which has fallen due upto April 28, 1994. 8. Accordingly, the appeal No. 315/94 (1305/93(Def) challenging the order dated February 25, 1993 is dismissed with costs. 9. If the said amount of Rs. 1,64,146/- and amount of rent at the agreed rate of Rs. 1,64,146/- and also the amount of rent at the agreed rate of @ Rs. 3,000/- which has fallen due upto April 28, 1994. 8. Accordingly, the appeal No. 315/94 (1305/93(Def) challenging the order dated February 25, 1993 is dismissed with costs. 9. If the said amount of Rs. 1,64,146/- and amount of rent at the agreed rate of Rs. 3,000/- which has subsequently accrued upto April 28, 1994 are deposited in the bank-account of the plaintiff within one month from the date of the receipt of the particulars, the appeal No. 13/94 challenging the order dated December 7, 1993 will stand allowed failing which it shall be deemed to have been dismissed with costs. The plaintiff will furnish the particulars of her bank-account to the Collector, Churu (Appellant No.1) and the Deputy Chief Medical Officer (Health), Churu (Appellant No. 2), through registered A.D. Post.Order accordingly. *******