Honble KOKJE, J. – The Revision Petition No. 395/93 and S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 30/97 arise from the same proceedings and they are being finally dispo- sed of with the consent of the parties by this common order. (2). S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 395/93 is against an order rejecting an application of applicant Banda Prajapati Samaj, Jodhpur through one Bhanwarlal S/o Sh. Motilal who claims to be its President to be made a party to the proceedings. The applicant-petitioner had moved an application u/O. 22 R. 10 CPC r/w O. 1 R. 10 CPC before the trial Court claiming that the plaintiff Bherulal who had filed the suit was a representative of Banda Prajapati Samaj and because he was removed from the post of President on 27.9.1986 the present President Bhanwarlal should be allowed to continue the suit and his name be substituted in place of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court rejected this application on the ground that the suit was filed under the Rent Control. Act and on the basis of a gift deed and the applicant had not proved that they were interested in the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner read from the plaint to show that the plaint taken as a whole is clearly based on a representative title and it was not on any cause of action which arose personally to the plaintiff. He also submitted that the gift deed itself was in favour of the community and not personally in favour of the plaintiff. He submitted that even otherwise u/O. 1 R. 10 CPC, u/O. 1 R. 8 sub-rule 3 the petitioner was entitled to be impleaded in the case. The learned counsel for the non- petitioners submitted that if every member of the community who claims to have become office bearer is allowed to join as a party, complications will arise and, therefore, according to the learned counsel the application was rightly rejected. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner that the suit was under the Rent Control Act and, therefore, principles of a representative suit could not be applied to it. (3). S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 30/97 relates to the question of deposit of rent according to Sec. 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Rent Control and Eviction) Act, 1950. (3). S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 30/97 relates to the question of deposit of rent according to Sec. 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Rent Control and Eviction) Act, 1950. The trial Court had directed that it was not necessary to determine interim rent u/s. 13(3) of the Act as there were no arrears of rent of more than six months on the date when the suit was filed. This view of the Court was based on the fact that rent from the period 1.7.1992 to 31.12.1994 was paid to the applicant Banda Prajapati Samaj through Bhanwarlal. The Court had observed that it will have to be determined as an issue in the case whether the rent paid to Bhanwarlal was a valid tender or payment of rent or not. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Court against this order and the District Court remanded back the case setting aside the order of the trial Court with a direction that it shall decide the point afresh after adjusting the rent deposited by the defendants. Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff has filed Civil Revision No. 30/97 complaining that the rent recovered or shown to be recovered by Bhanwarlal unauthorisedly has been directed to be adjusted towards rent paid, by the learned Addl. District Judge. (4). I have heard the learned counsel and perused the orders in both the cases. So far as S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 395/93 is concerned, it is clear that O. 22 R. 10 does not apply because there is no assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of the suit is involved. However, O. 1 R .8 sub-rule 3 would apply to the situation. Obviously, Bhanwarlal, who claims to be newly elected President of Banda Prajapti Samaj Jodhpur is a member of the community and as such is a beneficiary of this litigation. Though he cannot be substituted in place of Bherulal, the plaintiff, he ought to be allowed to be impleaded as a defen- dant. The order of the trial Court rejecting the application u/O 22 R. 10 CPC r/w O. 1 R 10 CPC is set aside and it is directed that the applicant-petitioner herein shall be impleaded as defendants in the suit. (5). The order of the trial Court rejecting the application u/O 22 R. 10 CPC r/w O. 1 R 10 CPC is set aside and it is directed that the applicant-petitioner herein shall be impleaded as defendants in the suit. (5). So far as S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 30/97 is concerned, the case has already been remanded by the appellate Court to the trial Court for deciding afresh the question of determination of interim rent u/s. 13(3) of the Act. While determining such a question it will have to be decided by the trial Court as to whether the rent tendered to the applicant Banda Prajapati Samaj through any one else than the plaintiff is a valid tender or payment of rent for the purposes of the suit. The appellate Court has also not decided this question and without determination of this question it cannot be said that a rent for a particular period paid to any one else than the plaintiff could be adjusted towards the rent deeming it to be rent paid to the landlord. The orders of both the Courts below therefore, deserves to be set aside, and are hereby set aside. It is directed that the trial Court shall decide afresh the question of fixing of interim rent u/s. 13(3) of the Act after hearing all the parties concerned and considering the material placed before it on record. The trial Court shall also determine the question whether rent paid to any one else than the plaintiff could be adjusted as rent paid to the landlord. This question will depend on as to whether the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe that person to whom he claimed to have paid the rent represented the Banda Prajapati Samaj for whose benefit the suit was brought by the plaintiff.. With these directions these two cases are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.