JUDGMENT 1. - Admittedly defendant-appellant is the tenant and in Para 19 of the written-statement, it has been pleaded by the appellant that the plaintiff-landlord installed a lock in the disputed premises, therefore, the rent of the disputed property be suspended. Learned trial Court determined the provisional rent under section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the 'Act'). Against this order of the learned trial Court, the present action for filing the miscellaneous appeal under section 22 of the Act has been resorted to. 2. Mr. Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vigorously canvassed that the plaintiff-landlord is not' entitled to the rent in view of Section 108(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which provides that the lessor is bound on the lessee's request to put him in possession of the property. When the defendant appellant is not using the property, he is not liable to pay any rent. Mr. Bajpai placed reliance on Tulsi Bai's case, reported in RLR 1993 (2) 498 , and contended that where relation of landlord and tenant is existed, provisional rent could not have peen determined. In Tulsi's case (supra), Division Bench of this Court (Hon. M.C. Jain C.J. and I.S. Israni J.) propounded that the Court is required to act under section 13(3) on the basis of material on record and after hearing parties, even on the question of relationship of landlord and tenant, if it finds prima facie that there is any relationship of landlord and tenant, the determination of rent can be made provisionally and in case it prima facie finds that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist, no rent is required to be determined under section 13(3). 3. A perusal of written statement filed by the defendant appellant demonstrates that the defendant-appellant admitted that he was the tenant in the disputed premises but subsequently the defendant-appellant developed this defence and and disputed having executed rent note in favour of the plaintiff respondent. In para No. 15 of the written statement, execution of another rent deed has been entered in favour of Rukmani Devi. In Para No. 16 of the written statement, it has been stated that Notice dated 10.5.19985, was issued by Mr. P.D. Mathur, Advocate, to the Manager of the defendant-appellant. In para No. 15 of the written statement, execution of another rent deed has been entered in favour of Rukmani Devi. In Para No. 16 of the written statement, it has been stated that Notice dated 10.5.19985, was issued by Mr. P.D. Mathur, Advocate, to the Manager of the defendant-appellant. It appears that the defendant is the tenant in the disputed premises and Anand Krishan Sharma, the plaintiff as well as his mother Rukmani Devi, both claimed to be the landlord of the said premises. 4. Mr. R.K. Agarwal, learned counsel, who is representing Rukmani Devi, the mother of the plaintiff-respondent contended that Rukmani Devi has been impleaded as party in this appeal as respondent No. 2, therefore, he may be permitted to argue on her behalf. 5. Mr. Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff respondent urged that Rukmani Devi moved an application u/O. 1, R. 10 CPC before the learned trial Court but the said application was dismissed. A revision was preferred against the said order but it was also dismissed vide order dated 7.2.1996, by this Court (Hon. R.S. Kejriwal, J. as he then was). But before passing of this order, Smt. Rukmani Devi was impleaded as party by this Court (Hon. Kejriwal, J.) by order dated 30.3.1994. 6. Be that as it may, I am of the view that when Rukmani Devi is not a party in the main suit, she could not have been impleaded as party in this appeal. However, when Smt. Rukmani Devi has been impleaded by this Court, I have heard Mr. R.K. Agarwal. Even if a person who is not party in the suit, can address the Court u /O. 1, R. 8-A of the CPC.Mr. R.K. Agarwal also placed an order dated 7.2.1996, passed by this Court (R.S. Kejriwal, J.) in S.B. Civil Revision No. 120/95, whereby it was directed that Civil Suit instituted by Rukmani Devi against the present defendant appellant and Civil Suit instituted by plaintiff respondent Anand Krishan, shall be tried together. This order has been complied with and the learned trial Court is trying both the cases together. 7. So far the arguments advanced by Mr. Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant are concerned I do not want to express any opinion at this stage and matter can be adjudicated upon by the learned trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties. 7. So far the arguments advanced by Mr. Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant are concerned I do not want to express any opinion at this stage and matter can be adjudicated upon by the learned trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties. However, I may like to observe that the rent deposited by the defendant appellant shall not be withdrawn either by plaintiff respondent or by Rukmani Devi. 8. In view of the observations made herein above the S.B. Civil Micellaneous appeal is being disposed of and the learned trial Court is directed to adjudicate upon the Civil Suits pending before it expeditiously, preferably within eight months from the date of receipt of this order. Mr. Bajpai, learned counsel wants one month's time to deposit arrears of rent. Time is granted. The record of the case be sent-back forthwith. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 6.1.1998.Costs easy.Revision disposed of. *******