JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision against the order of learned District Judge, Udaipur dated 29-5-1998 by which he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. 2. A civil suit for eviction under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act was filed by Badrilal against Rampal on so many grounds including the ground of default. The trial Court determined the rent under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. An appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge on the ground that the tenant does not accept to be a tenant of the landlord and there was a dispute between both of them on this ground and, therefore, the trial Court should not have determined the rent. The argument did not prevail before the learned District Judge and he dismissed the appeal, hence this revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the appeal the learned District Judge should have set aside the order of determination of rent. I do not agree with this contention. If the tenant does not accept tenancy of the landlord he may not deposit the rent in compliance of the order of the trial Court but to say that the Court should not have determined the rent, is not correct because Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act provides that in a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (a) of sub-sec. (1), with or without any of the other grounds referred to in that subsection. the Court shall, on the first day 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. Learned trial Court after having gone through the material on record provisionally determined the amount of rent to be deposited in Court or paid to the landlord by the tenant. To say that the Court should not have determined the provisional rent, is not correct. 5. Learned trial Court after having gone through the material on record provisionally determined the amount of rent to be deposited in Court or paid to the landlord by the tenant. To say that the Court should not have determined the provisional rent, is not correct. 5. I do not find any error in the order of the learned District Judge which may call for interference. 6. Consequently, there is no force in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******