Honble YADAV, J. – The instant appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.7.96 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur in pursuant to an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court on 13.5.94 relating to a dispute about provisional determination of rent under sub-sec. (3) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter refe-rred to as `Act No. 17 of 1950). (2). In the present case an interesting dominant question emerges from the arguments of learned counsel for the parties regarding interpretation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court on 13.5.94. In the case on hand if the interpretation put forth by the learned counsel for the tenant-defendant- appe-llant is accepted then the order under appeal is to be set aside and the case is to be remanded back to the learned trial court for decision afresh on merits whereas if the interpretation of order dated 13.5.94 put forth by learned counsel for the respondent is accepted then the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. (3). For proper appreciation of the arguments of learned counsel for the par-ties the order dated 13.5.94 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court is reproduced hereinbelow :– ``Learned counsel for the appellant has brought to my notice the provisions of section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 and has pressed into service the argument that there are rent receipts on the record which should have been taken into consideration by the court below before provisionally determining the amount of rent which in this case have been conveniently ignored. The counsel for the petitioner can move an application to the lower court to consider these receipts of rent because in case those receipts are genuine he would be saved from depositing the double payment in the situation. The counsel for the appellant is at liberty to move proper application for consideration of these receipts which the lower court shall consider by passing a speaking order, and in case what the appellant is saying is correct, then he will after the order take appropriate steps to move an application to the lower court for recalling the order determining the provisional rent. The appeal is dismissed with these observations. (4). The appeal is dismissed with these observations. (4). It is urged by learned counsel for the tenant-defendant- appellant whileinterpreting the order dated 13.5.94 that in view of the aforesaid order the learned trial court was required to take into account the rent-receipts filed by tenant-defendant- appellant on 30.5.95. With equal vehemence learned counsel for land lord-plaintiff-respondent Mr. Lalit Kawadia argued that in fact the appeal was filed against provisional determination of rent dated 18.9.92 which was dismissed by thiscourt on 13.5.94 with a direction to the learned trial court to consider those rent receipts which were ignored in its order dated 18.9.92. In support of his contention he invited my attention to the penultimate line of the order dated 13.5.94. According to Shri Kawadia, learned trial court was justified to refuse to consider rent- receipts filed by tenant-defendant on 30.5.95 which were not ignored by it in its order dated18.9.92. In rejoinder learned counsel for tenant-defendant-appellant refuting the aforesaid argument of Shri Kawadia invited my attention to the second paragraph of the order dated 13.5.94 wherein it was made clear that in case an application is made before trial court to consider rent-receipts it has to examine its genuineness so that tenant-defendant-appellant could be saved from making double deposit ofrent. (5). I have heard the learned counsel on both sides. Perused the order impugned as well as order dated 13.5.94 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court. (6). I am of the view that the order dated 13.5.94 is not happily worded becauseit is based on the incorrect statement of Bar. It is conceded by the learned counsel for tenant-defendant-appellant that the statement given before the learned Single Judge on 13.5.94 by the counsel for appellant was not correct. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that due to communication gap between him and counsel doing pairvi on behalf of appellant in the trial court, incorrect statementwas given before the learned Single Judge on 13.5.94. Although the mistake is serious but it is regretted by the counsel for the appellant. (7). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that due to communication gap between him and counsel doing pairvi on behalf of appellant in the trial court, incorrect statementwas given before the learned Single Judge on 13.5.94. Although the mistake is serious but it is regretted by the counsel for the appellant. (7). It is true that if the order dated 13.5.94 is interpreted literally, following word by word, then the interpretation put forth by learned counsel for the land lord-plaintiff-respondent would be correct and he would be perfectly justified in supporting the order impugned passed by learned trial court but if the order dated 13.5.94 is to be interpreted after extending theory of pith and substance then the argument advanced by learned counsel for the tenant-defendant-appellant would prevail. (8). In my humble opinion in such a critical situation courts are expected to take justice oriented approach so that cause of justice may not be defeated. To my mind when substantial justice is pitted against technical considerations cases of substantial justice deserves to be preferred by a court of justice and good conscience particularly where the parties are not at fault. (9). In my considered opinion if the order impugned is put on the anvil of the test laid down in preceding paragraph then it is found that the learned trial court has not properly understood the message sent by the learned Single Judge of this court in his order dated 13.5.94 in its correct perspective because of incorrect statement made at the Bar leading to ambiguity in the said order. (10). It is to be imbibed that provisional determination of rent under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 13 of Act No. 17 of 1950 being a very important and vital issue between land lord and tenant having serious repercussions on their rights and liabilities are to be decided by courts of law after application of judicial mind on the basis of material available on record. It is further to be noticed that order under appeal isalso not in keeping with the aim and object of Act No. 17 of 1950 which is beneficial enactment and has been passed by State Legislature to protect the harassment of tenants in State of Rajasthan. The rights guaranteed by State Legislature for protection of tenants envisaged under sub-sec. It is further to be noticed that order under appeal isalso not in keeping with the aim and object of Act No. 17 of 1950 which is beneficial enactment and has been passed by State Legislature to protect the harassment of tenants in State of Rajasthan. The rights guaranteed by State Legislature for protection of tenants envisaged under sub-sec. (1) of Section 13 of the Act No. 17 of 1950 cannot be allowed to be violated with impunity which is a non obstinate clause andclearly provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no Court shall pass any decree or make any order, in favour of a landlord, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise evicting the tenant so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent. (11). It is revealed from perusal of the order impugned that learned trial courthas made an attempt to legalize its order dated 18.9.92, determining provisional rent, ignoring cardinal principle of dispensation of justice to the effect that courts of law are respected not because they are capable to legalize injustice but are respected to do justice between the parties. It is further revealed from paragraph 15 of the order impugned that rent receipts were already filed by tenant-defendant-appellant and these rent-receipts were on record on the date of order under appeal yet genuineness of these receipts were not prima facie determined. Suffice it to say in this regard that if the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court on 13.5.94 would have been interpreted after extending the concept of pith and substance then the learned trial court ought to have taken into account these rentreceipts and ought to have decided prima facie genuineness of the rent receipts regarding payment of rent of the shop in question in pursuant to subsequent paragraph of the order quoted above. (12). It is also evident from perusal of the order impugned that tenant-defendant-appellant has filed these rent receipts on 30.5.95 stating that he is not in arrearsof rent upto February 1990. It is further evident from paragraph 21 of the impugned order that there are Ex. A-2 and Ex.A-3 on record according to which a huge amount is alleged to have been already deposited with land lord from which the tenant-defendant-appellant is expressing his desire to adjust the rent due upon him. It is further evident from paragraph 21 of the impugned order that there are Ex. A-2 and Ex.A-3 on record according to which a huge amount is alleged to have been already deposited with land lord from which the tenant-defendant-appellant is expressing his desire to adjust the rent due upon him. This offer of the tenant-defendant-appellant amounts his willingness and readiness todeduct the rent due from him from Ex. A-2 and Ex. A- 3. (13). In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the learned trial court was under legal obligation to assess the prima facie testimonial value of these two documents at the stage of provisional determination of rent as envisaged under sub-section (1) of Section 13 of Act No. 17 of 1950. (14). It is to be grasped that provisional determination of rent between land lord and tenant is not final adjudication of rent due upon the tenant but it is subject to final adjudication of the suit after full-fledged trial. As a matter of fact, provisional determination of rent due upon the tenant depends upon the prima facie case alleged by the landlord and denied by the tenant in his written statement. In provisional determination of rent under sub-section (3) of Section 13 of Act No. 17 of 1950 even if land lord did not get rent which he claims in his plaint he would not suffer any irreparable injury as the provisional determination of rent is subject to decision of suit on merit whereas if once excess provisional rent is determined bylearned trial court then the tenant has to suffer irreparable loss as his defence is liable to be struck off even if he has paid the rent as alleged by him in his written statement is found to be true at the time of decision of the suit on merit. It seems to me that this was clear message given by the learned Single Judge of this court in his order dated 13.5.94 to the learned trial court that the tenant in the presentcase should be saved from making double payment of rent. (15). It seems to me that this was clear message given by the learned Single Judge of this court in his order dated 13.5.94 to the learned trial court that the tenant in the presentcase should be saved from making double payment of rent. (15). As a result of aforementioned discussion the order impugned stricking off defence passed by learned trial court on 22.7.96 is set aside and the appeal is allowed with a direction to the learned trial court to examine the prima facie testimonial value of rent receipts filed by tenant-defendant-appellant on 30.9.95 aswell as prima facie testimonial value of Ex. A-2 and Ex.A-3 in the light of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of Act No. 17 of 1950 in accordance with law. Cost is made easy. _