Honble SHARMA, J.–The genesis of controversy in this revision relates to the order dated January 16, 1997 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City whereby appeal preferred by the defendant petitioner (for short the tenant) was dismissed and the order dated 22.2.1996 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 3, Jaipur City determining the provisional rent under Sec. 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950 (for short the Act) was confirmed. (2). The plaintiff non-petitioner (for short the land lord) instituted a suit on March 29, 1995 for eviction against the tenant on the ground of bonafide personal necessity and default in making payment of rent. Admittedly no relief in respect of recovery of arrears of rent was sought in the plaint. For the purpose of eviction the suit was valued at Rs. 35,100/- (on twelve months rent at the rate of Rs. 2925/- per month). In para 6 and 7 of the plaint the land lord pleaded that rent was due against the tenant since December 1993, therefore the tenant committed default in making payment of rent. (3). The learned trial court determined the provisional rent under section 13(3) of the Act and directed the tenant to make payment from December 1993 to January 1996 amounting to Rs. 69,920/- plus interest in the sum of Rs. 4247/- at the rate of 6% per annum to the land lord. (4). Mr. R.B. Mathur, learned counsel for the tenant urged that the plaintiff has not claimed the rent in the plaint therefore the plaintiff shall be deemed to have waived the claim of rent would the plaintiff have claimed the rent in the relief clause, the suit would have gone out of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. Therefore both the courts below have committed jurisdictional error in justifying the determination of provisional rent. The provisional rent could not have been determined without payment of court fee. (5). On the other hand Mr. Dalip Singh, learned counsel appearing for the land lord supported the impugned orders and canvassed that they were legally passed. The provisional rent was rightly determined. Whether proper court fee is paid or not is a question between the plaintiff and the State. Reliance was placed on Sri Ratnavarmaraja vs. Smt. Vimla (1). Mr. (5). On the other hand Mr. Dalip Singh, learned counsel appearing for the land lord supported the impugned orders and canvassed that they were legally passed. The provisional rent was rightly determined. Whether proper court fee is paid or not is a question between the plaintiff and the State. Reliance was placed on Sri Ratnavarmaraja vs. Smt. Vimla (1). Mr. Dalip Singh learned counsel further contended that it is not necessary that land lord should also file suit for arrears of rent as part of same cause of action. In support of this contention reliance was placed in Modi Steels vs. M.M. Agrawal (2), Uma Gupta vs. Ramesh Chandra (3) and Smt. Dayawati Joshi vs. S.H. Gupta (4). (6). I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the impugned orders as well as authorities cited before me. (7). At this juncture it is necessary to advert to the statutory provisions of Section 13(3) of the Act, which provides thus– ``In a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (a) of sub-section (1) with or without any of the other grounds referred to in that sub-section, the court shall, on the first date of hearing or on any other date as the court may fix in this behalf filing of the written statement and shall be before the framing of the issues, after hearing the parties and on the basis of material on record provisionally determine the amount of rent to be deposited in court or paid to the land lord by the tenant. Such amount shall be calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid or was payable for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the month previous to that in which such determination is made together with interest on such amount calculated at the rate of six percent per annum from the date when any such amount was payable upto the date of determination; Provided that while determining the amount under this sub-section the court shall not take into account the amount of rent which was barred by limitation on the date of filing of the suit. (8). (8). In order to appreciate the provisions contained in section 13(3) of the Act it will be useful to discuss section 13(1)(a) of the Act which reads thus- ``Section 13 Eviction of tenants–(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no court shall pass any decree, or make any order, in favour of a land lord, whether in execution of a decree of otherwise evicting the tenant so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent therefore to the full extent allowable by this Act, unless it is satisfied- (a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tenderned the amount of rent due from him for six months. (9). If a suit for eviction is based on default under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Act, the landlord must prove following three points: (i) Tenant is in arrears of rent; (ii) Such arrears of rent due for more than six months; (iii) Tenant has failed to pay such arrears of rent to the land lord. If any one or more point is not proved, no decree for eviction can be passed. Thus arrears of rent must be distinctly established. (10). Before passing the order directing the tenant to deposit arrears of rent with interest under section 13(3) of the Act, the court must go into the question whether there was any arrears of rent. Where there is a doubt or a dispute as to the actual amount due from the tenant, the court can not proceed under section 13(3) without due inquiry as to the assessment of amount of rent due. Before such enquiry no order under section 13(3) can be made. An `arrear of rent as mentioned in section 13(3) of the Act is that sum of money which is legally due and recoverable from the tenant. (11). A look at Sec.13(3) of the Act demonstrates that the court shall determine provisional rent after hearing the parties and on the basis of material on record. Therefore before determining provisional rent it is very necessary for the court to look into the averments of plaint. In order to show that the tenant has failed to pay arrears of rent for more than six months, it is not only necessary for the land lord to plead this fact in the plaint but also to seek relief in respect of recovery of arrears of rent. In order to show that the tenant has failed to pay arrears of rent for more than six months, it is not only necessary for the land lord to plead this fact in the plaint but also to seek relief in respect of recovery of arrears of rent. If the land lord only pleads the ground of default according to cl.(a) of S.13(1) of the Act but does not seek recovery of arrears of rent, this itself is sufficient to create suspicion in the truthfulness of the averments of default made in the plaint. (12). In Smt. Uma Gupta vs. Ramesh Chandra (supra) it is rightly held by this court that a suit purely on the ground set forth in section 13(1)(a) of the Act for eviction is maintainable and it is also not necessary to sue for arrears of rent relating to which the default is alleged to be committed by the tenant. (13). I also support the view expressed by this court in M/s. Modi Steels case (supra) that in order to maintain suit for eviction on the ground of non payment of rent as set forth in section 13(1)(a) of the Act it is not necessary for the landlord to sue for recovery of arrears of rent as part of the same cause of action. Whether a land lord who sues his tenant for eviction under section 13(1)(a) sues the tenant for arrears of rent or not, a duty is nonetheless cast on the court under section 13(3) of the Act to provisionally determine the amount of rent to be deposited in court. (14). But the court at the time of provisional determination of rent has to seriously consider the circumstance as to why a decree for recovery of alleged arrears of rent was not sought by the land lord despite the averments of default in the plaint in making payment of rent by the tenant for a period of more than six months. As already stated if the land lord omits to sue for recovery of arrears of rent, this fact is sufficient to ex facie disprove the allegation of default in making payment of rent on the part of the tenant. In such a situation allegations of default comes under the dark clouds of suspicion and weakens the case of the land lord so far it relates to `default clause. In such a situation allegations of default comes under the dark clouds of suspicion and weakens the case of the land lord so far it relates to `default clause. So in my considered opinion if the allegation of `default in accordance of section 13(1)(a) of the Act is made in the paint, it is necessary for the land lord to sue for recovery of arrears of rent in order to substantiate the averments of `default made in the plaint and also to enable the court to pass a logical and reasonable order under section 13(3) of the Act. (15). The object of provisional determination of rent according to section 13(3) of the Act is either to deposit the amount of arrears of rent by the tenant in the court or to make payment of the said `arrears to the landlord. This is evident from the following words- ``after hearing the parties and on the basis of material on record provisionally determine the amount of rent to be deposited in court or paid to the landlord by the tenant. (16). Now the questions that arise for consideration are as to whether land lord who does not sue for recovery of arrears of rent is entitled to receive alleged arrears of rent with the assistance of the court ? Can in a suit a relief be granted provisionally, which cannot be granted in the form of a decree ? Answers to these questions can never be in affirmative. The amount of rent can not be paid to the land lord which is not a subject matter of recovery in the suit. No doubt that the court shall have to hear the parties and examine the material on record under section 13(3) for provisional determination of rent but looking to the fact that plaint does not disclose recovery of arrears of rent, the court may observe that ground of `default is not properly set forth in the suit, therefore it is not necessary to determine the provisional rent. (17). In the case on hand though the land lord in paras 6 and 7 of the plaint pleaded that rent was due against the tenant since December 1993 therefore the tenant committed default in making payment of rent. (17). In the case on hand though the land lord in paras 6 and 7 of the plaint pleaded that rent was due against the tenant since December 1993 therefore the tenant committed default in making payment of rent. Admittedly the landlord did not sue for recovery of arrears of rent therefore when the rent from December 1993 onwards was not claimed by the land lord and no decree for the arrears of rent as alleged in the plaint can ultimately be passed in the suit, I am of the considered view that no provisional rent could have been determined. No relief in respect of provisional payment of rent could have been granted to the land lord as he omitted to sue for the recovery of the arrears of rent. This omission on the part of the land lord create suspicion in the truthfulness of the averments of default made in the plaint. If the rent in fact was due against the tenant why did the land lord omit to sue for the recovery of the said arrears of rent ? As averments of default were not substantiated by the land lord by asking the relief of recovery of arrears of rent in the plaint the ground of default was not properly set forth in the suit and in absence of sufficient material on record it was not necessary to determine the provisional rent. (18). So far as the arguments in respect of pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court is concerned, I am unable to subscribe the contention raised by the learned counsel for the tenant under Sec. 21 CPC, the revisional court cannot go into this question. The tenant even if honestly believes that proper court fee has not been paid by the land lord, has still no right to move the superior court by appeal or revision against the order adjudging payment of court fee payable on the plaint as is held in Sri Rathnavarmaraja vs. Smt. Vimla (supra) by the Supreme Court. (19). I must accordingly hold that the learned courts below have committed illegality in exercise of jurisdiction vested in them in determining the provisional rent. If the orders are allowed to stand, failure of justice would be occasioned. (20). In the result the revision succeeds and is hereby allowed, the impugned orders of the courts below stand set aside. Costs easy.