Honble JAIN, J. – This revision is directed against the order dated 4.7.1995 of the learned Addl. Distt. Judge No. 1, Jodhpur by which the learned Addl. Distt. Judge accepted the appeal filed by the defendant-non-petitioner in a matter of determination of rent. (2). The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the plaintiff petitioner filed a suit for evition against the defendant. It appears that the learned trial Court by its order dated 1.12.1994 determined the interim rent u/s. 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act (for sort the Act). A dispute was raised by the defendant that previously he was a tenant in respect of shop No.1 but possession of that shop was handed over to the plaintiff and that he was no more a tenant of the above premises. The learned trial Court considered the point and since the defendant could not produced any evidence or document regarding this allegation, he through it proper to determine the rent u/s. 13(3) of the Act. The defendant preferred an appeal and the learned appellate Court set aside the above order on the ground that where there is a dispute between the parties regaridng the relationship of landlord and tenant, the Court must first determine whether any such relationship exists between the parties and then determine the rent. According to the learned Appellate Court, the trial Court did not assign any reason for coming to the conclusion that a tenancy or lease subsists between the parties. (3). A show cause notice was issued to the non-petitioner but despite service he has not appeared. (4). I have heared learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the orer of the trial Court shows that he was alive to the dispute raised by the defendant that he had already handed over the possession of shop No.1 to the plaintiff and he came to the conclusion that since the defendant could not produce any evidence or mateirla in support of this allegation, the conclusion was obvious that the tenancy between the parties exists. The learned appellate Court was, therefore, not correct in remarking that the learned trial Court has not given any reasons for holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the paries. The learned trial Court for want for evidence held that prima facie the tenant was atenant of plaintiff. The learned appellate Court was, therefore, not correct in remarking that the learned trial Court has not given any reasons for holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the paries. The learned trial Court for want for evidence held that prima facie the tenant was atenant of plaintiff. He, therefore, determined the rent. The burden of proof lay on the defendant to prove that he had handed over the possession of shop No.1 to the plaintiff. Except making this bald allegation, the defendant has not produced any material to substantiate this averment. (5). I, therefore, accept the revision set aisde the order of the appellate Court and restored that of the trial Court.