JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 21.3.1998 passed by learned ADJ No.2, Bharatpur in Civil Misc. Appeal No.62/97 whereby, the said Appellate Court after taking over-all view of the matter and after due appreciation of evidence on the record had dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner/ appellant against fixation of interim rent by the trial Court in accordance with the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) [Sic 13(3)] of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 for short "the Act of 1950". 2. The brief facts which are relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties are that a civil suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act of 1950 for realisation of rent and eviction against the petitioner before the Civil Judge (junior Division) Bharatpur. The suit relates to the eviction of the petitioner of a shop (tibari) which had been let out to him by the respondent in January 1991 at the rate of र 500/- per month. Since the petitioner had only paid a sum of र 1500/- initially at the time of occupying the said shop premises as tenant he did not pay any rent thereafter inspite of the demands made to this effect by the respondent-landlord and since the arrears of rent accumulated for a period of more than six months the plaintiff-respondent also became entitled to file the suit for eviction of the petitioner-tenant (defendant) as per the provisions of Section 13(1)(a) of the Act of 1950 on the ground of default in payment of rent. 3. On receipt of the notice the petitioner contested the suit and filed the reply. The relationship of landlord and tenant was disputed by the petitioner at the outset apart from other ground but he failed to furnish positive evidence before the trial Court regarding the payment of arrears of rent but on the contrary raised the dispute regarding the rate of rent on which the premises were let out to the petitioner. The relationship of landlord and tenant was disputed by the petitioner at the outset apart from other ground but he failed to furnish positive evidence before the trial Court regarding the payment of arrears of rent but on the contrary raised the dispute regarding the rate of rent on which the premises were let out to the petitioner. Hence, the trial Court had no option but to pass an order dated 5.11.1997 in Civil Suit No. 7/93 in accordance with Section 13(3) of the Act of 1950 by determining the amount of rent to be deposited by the tenant in the court or to be paid to the landlord by the tenant directly or through Money Order in case of refusal to accept the same at the rate of rent at which it was last paid i.e. र 500/- per month w.e.f. the date which had fallen due to the landlord. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred an appeal before District Judge, Bharatpur which was assigned to ADJ No.2, Bharatpur who vide order dated 21.3.1998 finally decided the appeal by recording a specific finding to the effect that as regards the determination of the rate of rent at र 500/- per month, the finding of the trial Court was not open to challenge since the tenant had after the initial payment of rent for a period of three months as aforesaid had committed default in payment of rent for the subsequent period as a result 'of rent for the subsequent period as a result of which arrears of rent had fallen due to the landlord. Apart from that the Appellate Court recorded a finding that relationship of landlord and tenant as regards the title was also not open to challenge. Being aggrieved of the order of the Appellate Court, the petitioner/ appellant earlier came up before this Court in S.B.Civil Revision Petition No.336/97 which was decided by this Court on 26.4.1997 with a direction to the trial Court to give fresh opportunity to the parties of leading evidence only on the aspect of determination of relationship of landlord and the tenant between the parties. Thereafter, the trial Court after giving the due opportunity of hearing to the parties-of leading evidence finally came to the conclusion vide its order 30.7.1997 that the plaintiff was admittedly the owner of the shop premises in question and hence the said finding became final and was conclusive as regards the determination of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the title of landlord was not open to challenge by the tenant. 4. It is thus apparent from the above that after having exhausted both remedies of availing appeal against the order of the trial Court making determination of rent in accordance with Section 13(1)(a) [sic section 13(3) ?] of the Act of 1950 as well as relationship of landlord and the tenant between the parties, the petitioner has yet again come up by way of this revision petition against the order dated 21.3.1998 passed by ADJ No.2, Bharatpur in Civil Misc. Appeal No.62/97. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, examined their rival claims and contentions as well as the legal position on the subject. 6. Prima-facie, I am of the considered view that once the trial Court has determined the rent in accordance with the provisions of Section 13(1)(a) [Sic 13(3) ?] of the Act of 1950 it is mandatorily required of the tenant to comply with the said order by depositing the rent in the court or pay to the landlord the amount so determined in accordance with law including arrears which had fallen due from the tenant within 15 days from the date of such determination or with such further time not exceeding three months as may be extended by the court in accordance with Section 13(4) of the Act of 1950. In this regard, I may observe that the trial Court has no option to extend the time in any case beyond three months from the date of determination of the interim rent. The petitioner has availed both the remedies of appeal as well as the revision in accordance with law and thereafter has yet again come up in the present revision petition by way of third ground by raising such grounds which were not open to him to raise by challenging the findings of the courts below. 7. The petitioner has availed both the remedies of appeal as well as the revision in accordance with law and thereafter has yet again come up in the present revision petition by way of third ground by raising such grounds which were not open to him to raise by challenging the findings of the courts below. 7. Apparently, I do not find any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error committed by the Appellate Court in passing the impugned-order dated 5.11.1997 and the same is accordingly upheld. 8. As a result of above discussion, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to expeditiously deal with and decide the matter in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 27.10.1998. Having regard to the fact that the matter is pending adjudication since 1993, I deem it appropriate to direct the trial Court that the proceedings shall be dealt with and decided within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.Revision dismissed. *******