Honble MADAN, J. – This appeal U/s. 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 for short ``the Act has been preferred to this Court against the order dt. 15.5.96, passed by learned A.D.J., Gangapur City in Civil Suit No. 1/95, whereby the arrears of rent due to the pliantiff/respondent were provisionally determined by the trial court U/s. 13(3) of the Act. (2). The plaintiff/respondent has filed a suit for eviction and of arrears of rent against the appellant on 7.1.95 on account of default besides other grounds. It was alleged in the suit that the arrears of rent were due to the plaintiff w.e.f. 1.5.92 i.e. for 32 months @ Rs. 25. 2, 000/- per month. It was further alleged that the rent note in this regard was duly executed between the parties on 1.5.92. The plaintiff had also raised the demand for house tax and electricity charges in the suit. (3). The suit was contested by the appellant/defendant. A written statement was filed on his behalf, wherein it was contended that the shop was actually taken on rent w.e.f. 1.4.89 and not w.e.f. 1.5.92 as alleged by the plaintiff @ Rs. 1,075/- per month and the rent was being paid regularly at the said rate. It was further submi- tted that the rent note was got executed under threat of eviction but it was never acted upon. The plaintiff himself had stated that the rent will continue at the old rate. It was further stated that no rent receipt was issued in lieu of payment of rent by the appellant-plaintiff, but the payment of rent had been duly entered by the appellant in the books of accounts, maintained in the regular course of business, which shows that regular and upto date payment of rent had been made. The appellant had also contended that in the Gangapur City, there was not a single shop, which was let out at the exhorbitant rent of Rs. 2,000/- per month. The rent was even otherwise exhorbitant and therefore the appellant prayed to the trial Court for fixation of the standard rent. In support of his pleas taken in the written statement, the defendant apart from filing his own affidavit, also filed the affidavits of various persons, which were filed in various cases. 2,000/- per month. The rent was even otherwise exhorbitant and therefore the appellant prayed to the trial Court for fixation of the standard rent. In support of his pleas taken in the written statement, the defendant apart from filing his own affidavit, also filed the affidavits of various persons, which were filed in various cases. Several rent notes were also filed in this regard to show that in all similar suits for eviction relating to shops in the said area and the orders passed by the court u/s. 13(3) of the Act in various cases, the rent in respect of similar premises was below Rs. 500/- per month. Counter claim was also filed to determine standard rent and for refund of excess rent, already paid. (4). Learned trial Court vide its impugned order dt. 15.5.96 directed the payment of rent for the period 1.5.92 to 30.4.96 @ Rs. 2,000/- per month, which comes to Rs. 96, 000/- for the said period towards arrears. It was observed by the trial court in this regard that the amount of rent deposited u/s. 19(A) of the Act will be adjustable and the interest @ 6 per cent shall be paid. However, the trial court while giving the said direction had not calculated any specific amount nor any period had been specified. Aggrieved by this order dt. 15.5.96, the appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds inter-alia that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside, since no reasons have been recorded by the trial court for disbelie- ving the entries in the books of accounts maintained by the defendant-appellant in the regular course of business, showing payment of rent for the period 1989-90 to 1995-96. Cash book as well as ledger were also produced but the court below had not made any observation either to believe or disbelieve the same, but has simply observed that no rent receipt had been produced, hence entire amount is outstan- ding and due to be paid. (5). The appellant has also assailed the impugned order on the ground that no discussion has been made by the trial court with regard to the books of account and the affidavits of the deponents. The case was also not fixed for evidence or cross-examination of the dependents. (5). The appellant has also assailed the impugned order on the ground that no discussion has been made by the trial court with regard to the books of account and the affidavits of the deponents. The case was also not fixed for evidence or cross-examination of the dependents. The appellant has further contended that the case of the plaintiff was prima-facie unbelievable in as much as to allow such a beig amount to pile up as arrears is against the natural conduct and the plaintiff should have claimed the arrears, which were due, by filing a suit for recovery much earlier. The date of tenancy has also been disputed by the appellant as having commenced w.e.f. 1.4.89 instead of 1.5.92 as alleged by the plaintiff-respondents. (6). It has further been contended in the memo of appeal that the plaintiff was not in the habit of issuing rent receipts in lieu of rent received and for the earlier period also the payment of rent was shown in the books of account regularly kept by the appellant in the ordinary course of business. If the rent was not in the arrears for earlier period, it cannot be said to be in arrears for the later period also. (7). The appellant has further assailed the impugned order on the ground that a gross irregularity has been committed by the trial court in demanding arrears of rent U/s. 13(3) of the Act without determining at the first instance provisional standard rent and since the amount has not been calculated or determined, it cannot be said that the impugned order fulfills the requirements of Section 13(3) of the Act. The appellant has also raised the dispute that large number of documents relevant for fixation of standard rent have not been discussed at all in the impugned order passed by the trial court. During the course of hearing, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that rent upto 1st October94 was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in cash and thereafter rent was sent by money order for 3 months and on its refusal, rent was deposited in Court. He has further contended that no reason has been assigned by the trial court for not believing the entries made in the account books. He has further contended that no reason has been assigned by the trial court for not believing the entries made in the account books. Shri Maloo, learned counsel for the appellant has contended at the bar that the tenancy between the parties was oral. The new rent note dt. 1.5.92 was got executed by the respondent -landlord under the threat of eviction and was not acted upon. He has further contended that it was agreed between the parties that the rent will continue to be paid at the old rate. The landlord/plaintiff never issued any receipt in lieu of rent received either before 1.5.92 or after 1.5.92. The defendant is doing petty business in the shop and is regularly maintaining account books in the ordinary course of business, for which there is a presumption of correctness U/s. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act and U/s. 34 of the said Act, they are admissible in evidence. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the entire Gangapur City, there is no shop, rent of which exceeds Rs. 150/- to Rs. 550/- per month in the same locality. He has further contended that the learned trial court has not given any finding in respect of the documents, which were produced on the record and how such documents could be unbelievable or made- up since the said documents could not be fabricated by the appellant. It was further contended that the rent was sent by money order on three occasions for the period upto 31st December94, but all the three money orders were returned back by the plaintiff on 16.1.95. Thereafter the defen- dant/tenant deposited the rent in Court U/s. 19(A) of the Act. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the following judgments :– (1) Order dt. 28.7.95, passed by this Court in M/s. Mittal Enterprises vs. Murli Manohar (1), wherein it was held that since the order U/s. 13(3) of the Act was pa- ssed by the trial Court without referring & considering the material, placed on the record by the defendant and the affidavits are of both sides and as such the impugned order was set-aside and the matter was returned back to the trial court for giving fresh decision in accordance to law. (2) Madan Lal vs. Laxman Das (2), wherein it was held by this court that determina- tion of provisional standard rent is mandatory before passing of the order u/s. 13(3) of the Act. (3) RLR 1996 Page 993 (3), wherein it was held by this Court that after considering the provisions of Section 7 & Section 13(3) of the Act, the court shall determine such provisional rent, which may be fair and adjustable in the facts and circumstances of the case. (4) In case of Prasanna Kumar vs. Mohan Lal (4), wherein it was held that it is the duty of the court to fix the provisional rent as soon as the written statement claiming the relief of fixation of standard rent is filed-Provisional rent so determined will be the basis of calculation U/s. 13(3) of the Act . (5) Order passed in Shambhu Dayal vs. Ram Babu (5), wherein it was held that since the provisional standard rent was not fixed before passing the order U/s. 13(3), the order is not sustainable and the impugned order was quashed and the matter remanded back to the trial court for determination of standard provisional rent. (8). In my opinion the ratio of the above decisions are not applicable to this case. (9). The learned counsel for the appellant lastly contended that since the trial court while passing the impugned order had not taken into consideration the rele- vant evidence including books of accounts etc., which he had placed on the record, the impugned order is not sustainable and the same should be set-aside with a direction to the trial court to pass fresh order after considering the entire material placed on the record. (10). The above contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appe-- llant were controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent. Sh. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended at the bar that there is no illegality, impropriety or infirmity, committed by the trial court, while provisionally determining the arrears of rent U/s. 13(3) of the Act for the reason that the appellant had neither disputed the rate of rent of Rs. 2000/- per month nor he had raised any dispute regarding the rent note duly executed between the parties w.e.f. 1.5.92. 2000/- per month nor he had raised any dispute regarding the rent note duly executed between the parties w.e.f. 1.5.92. If there was any dispute either regarding the rate of rent or regarding the date of tenancy, then there was no compulsion for the appellant to have continued in the suit premises at the agreed rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month or to have paid the same at the said rate for the earlier period as so alleged and nothing prevented the appellant to have moved the trial court at the earliest occasion. In support of his contentions advanced at the bar, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the rent deed dt. 1.5.92, which is duly signed by both the parties and also witnesses, a copy of the legal notice dt. 5.12.94, issued by the counsel for the respondent/landlord terminating the tenancy by the appellant as well as the reply to the notice dt. 7.1.95. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned order dt. 15.5.96, passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Gangapur City in Civil Suit No. 1/95 as well as the documents placed on the record and also the ratio of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant at the bar. (11). I am of the considered opinion, that there is no reason for disbelieving the rent note dt. 1.5.92, wherein date of commencement of tenancy has been specifically mentioned as 1.5.92 and the rate of rent has been indicated as Rs. 2,000/- per month excluding house tax and electricity charges. The execution of the said rent note has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant though it has been contended that it was executed and its terms accepted by the appellant under compelling circumstances which is quite unbelievable as there could be no such compulsion or duress for the appellant either to have accepted or to have declined the same. (12). It is further indicated in the rent note that the shop premises was let-out to the appellant for a period of 10 months and that tenancy can be determined with one months prior notice on either side. (13). (12). It is further indicated in the rent note that the shop premises was let-out to the appellant for a period of 10 months and that tenancy can be determined with one months prior notice on either side. (13). The said rent note is duly signed by both the parties to the suit i.e. appellant as the tenant and the plaintiff/respondent as the landlord and the rent note was signed in presence of two witnesses of the locality. During the course of hearing with regard to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant disputing the tenancy as having commenced w.e.f. 1.4.89 instead of 1.5.92, I do not find any documentary evidence on the record, which could be either by in a form of a rent note of the said date or any rent receipt issued by the landlord in favour of the tenant indicating the date of tenancy from the said earlier date or the agreed rate of rent as Rs. 1,075/- per month as so contended by the appellant. If it was so, then nothing prevented the appellant from producing the said documents on the record. I am further of the opinion that in absence of any evidence as referred to above, prima-facie no presumption can be drawn in favour of the appellant either regarding the date of prior tenancy as having commenced w.e.f. 1.4.89 or the rent having been paid @ Rs. 1,075/- per month for the period of 1.4.89 to 1.10.94 merely on the basis of entries in the books of accounts maintained by the appellant in the regular course of business as the same were disputed by the respondent. (14). I am further of the considered opinion, that no such presumption can be drawn regarding the payment of rent for the earlier period as referred to above merely on the basis of private entries made by a party in its books of account U/s. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act unless they are authenticated by payment of tax due to public authorities by way of assessment of annual return such as Income tax and House tax etc. Since there was a dispute regarding the rate of rent as well as the date of tenancy between the parties, nothing prevented the appellant from depositing the rent for the earlier period i.e. 1.4.89 to 1.10.94 in the trial court itself in absence of which the only logical conclusion, which emerges is that rent for the earlier period was not paid by the appellant and it being in arrears was due to the respondent-landlord. If the landlord had refused to issue the rent receipts in lieu of payment of rent as so contended by the appellant, then nothing prevented the appellant to have either issued notice of demand asking for the issuance of the rent receipts for the rent paid in the past or he could have deposited the rent in the Court with the direction to the landlord to issue the receipt in lieu of the rent paid or de- posited as envisaged under section 19(A) of the Act. The arguments, which have been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had made entries in his books of accounts in lieu of the rent paid for the disputed period are thus wholly untenable. I am of the considered opinion that the entries made in the regular course of business are prima-facie not the proof of payment of rent by a tenant to the landlord, where a serious dispute has been raised by the landlord regarding non-payment of rent. In such a situation, the positive evidence, which the tenant should have placed on the record in the payment of rent by money order in the event of its refusal by the landlord or the deposit of rent directly to the court itself, which shall be the admitted proof of payment of rent. From t he perusal of the documents, filed by the appellant, before this Court, I have not come cross a single document, which proves the payment of rent by the appellant to the respondent for the disputed period i.e. 1.4.89 to 1.10.94 and not a single receipt in lieu of the rent paid @ 1,075/- per month as alleged by the appellant has been placed on the record and in absence of which, I find no reason to disbelieve the rent note dt. 1.5.92, which was duly executed between the parties and in which the rate of rent has been specifically mentioned as Rs. 1.5.92, which was duly executed between the parties and in which the rate of rent has been specifically mentioned as Rs. 2,000/- per month and accepted by the parties. (15). As a result of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that findings recorded by the learned trial court are well reasoned and do not call for any inter- ference by this court. I find no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error, committed by the trial court. In fixing the interim standard rent of the suit premises in accordance to Section 13(3) of the Act, 1950 @ Rs. 2,000/- per month w.e.f. 1.5.92. The appellant is accordingly directed to deposit the arrears of provisional standard rent as determined by the trial court in terms of its order dt. 15.5.96 for the period 1.5.92 to 13.4.96 for 48 months amounting to Rs. 96,000/- if not deposited earlier within a period of 8 weeks from today. If the appellant has earlier made any payment or deposit on account of arrears of rent for the aforesaid period, then he will be entitled to claim deduction from the amount deposited U/s. 19(A) of the Act, which will include interest @ 6 per cent per annum. The appellant is further directed to deposit the future rent @ Rs. 2,000/- per month as directed by the trial court w.e.f. 1.5.96 pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit. The Misc. Appeal petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.