JUDGMENT 1. - This order will also dispose of S.B. Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 546 of 92, 547 of 92 and 548 of 92. As all of them involve the same question of facts and law, the facts of Sobh Raj (SB Civil Revision Petition No.453 of 92) are mentioned for the purposes of convenience. 2. The plaintiffs-respondents had filed a suit for eviction, against the petitioner-defendant, for his eviction from the premises in dispute, on the ground of default in payment of rent, with the allegations that the defendant-petitioner had obtained the benefit of sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (the Act), in an earlier proceeding and had again committed default in payment of rent for more then six months on the date of the filing of the suit. It was prayed that a decree be passed against the petitioner-defendant, for his eviction from the premises in dispute. The suit was contested by the defendant - Petitioner, who pleaded that he never defaulted in payment of rent and further that he had tendered the rent to the respondents, who refused to accept the same and that he had also sent money-orders and, as such, the ground of default was not made out. The petitioner also denied having taken the benefit of sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the Act, in the earlier proceedings, although, it was admitted that an earlier suit was filed by the respondents on the ground of default in payment of rent. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court determined the rent under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act, observing that it cannot be said that in the earlier proceedings, any benefit was taken by the petitioner-defendant under sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the Act. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court determined the rent under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act, observing that it cannot be said that in the earlier proceedings, any benefit was taken by the petitioner-defendant under sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the Act. Against the order, determining the rent, the respondents filed an appeal, which was heard by the learned Civil Judge, Pali, who vide the impugned order dated 24th April, 1992, has partly allowed the appeal after observing that the rent could be determined with the condition that if the petitioner had been given the benefit of sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the Act, in the earlier proceeding, in spite of the fact that he would deposit the rent so determined by the court, he would not be entitled to such benefit in these proceedings. He has held that if the petitioner-defendant was not given the benefit of the above-said section in the earlier proceedings, he would be entitled to the benefit being given to him in these proceedings, if the case is proved against him on the ground of default. It was also observed that the learned trial court should decide the question of the benefit having been obtained by the petitioner in the earlier suit, only after framing the necessary issues. In this view of the matter, vide the impugned order dated 24th April, 1992, the order determining the rent, has been set aside and it has been directed that the rent should be re-determined and that the above-said condition should be mentioned in the order, determining the rent. The matter was thus remanded to the learned trial court. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant - petitioner has approached this Court by filing this revision petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 4. It is not disputed before me that according to the case, set up by the respondents, the petitioner had committed default in payment of rent for more than six months on the date of filing of the suit and also that he had been given the benefit under sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the Act, in the earlier suit as he had deposited the rent. It is also not disputed before me that in the earlier suit, the petitioner had filed an application, stating that although, he had not committed any default in payment of rent and had tendered it even by money-orders, he wanted that the rent be determined, without prejudice to his rights, and thereupon, the rent was determined and was deposited by the petitioner, and thereupon, the respondents had filed an application, praying that the suit filed by them, be dismissed as withdrawn, as the petitioner had deposited the rent in compliance with the order, determining the rent, and thereupon, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn, by the learned trial court. It is also not in dispute before me that the learned trial court, in the present case, while determining the rent, had observed that the petitioner had not been given the benefit of sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the Act, in the earlier suit and that finding was without recording any evidence or giving the parties an opportunity to lead the same. The above finding can only be said to be an observation, as a finding can be only if the parties have led evidence or have been given opportunity to do so. The above finding can only be said to be an observation, as a finding can be only if the parties have led evidence or have been given opportunity to do so. It cannot be disputed that according to the scheme of the Act, if a tenant fails to pay the rent or fails to tender it, the landlord gets a right to seek his eviction from the premises, and when an action for eviction is brought in the court, the court has to determine the rent, which has to be paid by way of arrears and which has to be paid by the tenant during the pendency of the suit and if the tenant complies with the order of payment/deposit of rent during the pendency of the suit, even if it is proved that the tenant had committed a default in paying or tendering the rent and a ground under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act, is proved, he cannot be evicted by passing a decree and has to be given the benefit of sub-section (6); having complied with the orders of paying the arrears of rent, determined by the court, and if such a tenant again commits a default in not paying or tendering the rent to the landlord and the ground is proved in the second case, he would not be entitled to the benefit in the second case. It is also not in dispute before me that sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act, makes it mandatory for the court to determine rent, irrespective of the fact whether it is the case of first default or second default, although, sub-section (6) of Section 13 makes it clear that even if the order of determination of rent is complied with, the benefit of such deposit cannot be given to the tenant once he has taken the benefit on an earlier occasion, and in this view of the matter, I feel that the learned appellant court was right in holding that the rent had to be determined, but the petitioner could not be given the benefit of sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the Act, if he had actually availed of the said benefit in the earlier proceedings, but, there was no necessity for the learned first appellant court to have set aside the order dated 3rd September, 1985, determining the rent and the appeal could have been disposed of by making out the legal position mentioned above, clear. The learned trial court has rightly observed that the matter as to whether the tenant had availed of the benefit of depositing the rent in the earlier suit, has to be decided after framing the issues and recording evidence, and calls for no interference. At this stage, the learned counsel for the parties state that as and when the issue is framed by the learned trial court in this regard, they would produce only the documentary evidence in the form of pleadings in the earlier suit, including the applications, if any, moved by the parties and the order passed by the learned trial court in those proceedings. 5. Consequently, while setting aside the impugned order as far as it has set aside the order dated 3rd September, 1985, of the learned trial court determining the rent under sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act, the revision petition is disposed of with the above-said observations. *******