JUDGMENT 1. - This revision arises from the order dated November 4, 1996 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bharatpur, whereby the application under Order 24 Rule 1 CPC moved by the defendant-non-petitioner for depositing the amount of rent was allowed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that in a suit for recovery of rent and eviction on the ground of second default instituted by the plaintiff petitioner (for short the land lord) against the defendant non-petitioner (in short the tenant). Before provisional determination of rent under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the Act), the tenant moved an application under Order 24 Rule 1 CPC, praying therein to deposit the amount of rent. The learned trial court allowed the application vide the impugned order and directed the tenant to deposit the rent till October, 1996 only. It has further been observed by the trial court that the provisional determination of rent under section 13(3) of the Act shall be made independently after hearing the parties. 3. Mr. B.L. Mandhana, learned counsel appearing for the land lord contended that the suit for arrears of rent due from December 1, 1992 to October 31, 1994 only and it does not envisage payment for future rent from December 1, 1995 to November 30, 1996. Order 24 Rule 1 CPC does not envisage payment of such due which are not part of the claim filed, current and future rent is ordered to be paid only when eviction suit is decreed. The tenant has filed applicatioti purportedly under Order 24 Rule 1 CPC for provisional determination of rent. 4. On the other hand the learned Senior Advocate Mr. G.G. Sharma, supported the impugned order and contended that there was no jurisdictional error in the said order. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the impugned order as well as the authorities cited at bar. 4. On the other hand the learned Senior Advocate Mr. G.G. Sharma, supported the impugned order and contended that there was no jurisdictional error in the said order. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the impugned order as well as the authorities cited at bar. It will be useful at this juncture to refer the relevant statutory provision, order 24 rule 1 CPC provides thus "Deposit by defendant of amount in satisfaction of claim -The defendant in any suit to recover a debt or damages may, at any stage of the suit, deposit in court such sum of money as he considers a satisfaction in full of the claim." Section 13(3) of the Act, provides thus "(3) 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 which shall not be more than three months after 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 landlord 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 up to 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 perannum from the date when any such amount was payable up to 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 the filing of the suit." 6. A close look at the impugned order demonstrates that the learned trial court in addition to allow the application under Order 24 Rule 1 CPC also observed that the provisional rent shall be determined independently after hearing the parties. 7. A close look at the impugned order demonstrates that the learned trial court in addition to allow the application under Order 24 Rule 1 CPC also observed that the provisional rent shall be determined independently after hearing the parties. 7. Now the only question which remains to be considered is as to whether the provisions contained in order 24 Rule 1 CPC are attracted in the instant case. Order 24 Rule 1 deals with the payment into the court in satisfaction of a claim after institution of a- suit and before the decree. Rule contemplates an unconditional deposit of an amount of money in court by the defendant. I am of the view that the provisions contained in order 24 Rule 1 CPC are not in conflict with the provisions contained in the Act of 1950. A perusal of section 13(3) of the Act goes to show that while determining the provisional rent the court has to hear the parties and to consider the material on record. If any deposit is made under Order 24 Rule 1 CPC by the tenant before determination of the provisional rent, such deposit may form part of the material on record and it is for the trial court while determining the provisional rent under section 13(3) of the Act to consider or not to consider such. deposits. Judicial discretion give to the trial court under section 13(3) of the Act is absolutely independent and if any deposit is made under Order 24 Rule 1 CPC it does not affect the rights of the parties provided under section 13(3) of the Act, 1950. 8. In Smt. Swaran Devi v. Kailash Chandra Jain and another (RLW 1996(1) page 292) this court propounded that a tenant, against whom the suit for eviction and arrears of rent has been filed has a right to deposit the rent during the pendency of the suit in the court itself and on such deposit being made, the provisions of Order 24, Rules 2 and 3 CPC will apply. As the learned trial court observed in the impugned order that provisional rent under section 13(3) of the Act shall be determined independently I do not see any jurisdictional error in the impugned order and if the order is allowed to stand it would not occasion failure of justice. 9. In Result, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Costs easy.Revision dismissed. *******