JUDGMENT 1. - The plaintiff-petitioner has filed this revision petition under section 115 CPC feeling aggrieved by the order dated 3.2.1998 passed by the learned District Judge, Bikaner by which the order dated 22.10.1997 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No. 2, Bikaner has been reversed. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the non-petitioner-defendant on the ground of default besides other grounds. The plaintiff-petitioner averred that the rent became due from the defendants for three years Q Rs. 500 / - per month amounting to Rs. 18,000/-. The defendants, by filing the written statement, denied that the monthly rent was Rs. 500/-. According to the defendants the rent agreed between the parties was Rs. 350/- per month. Since it was statutorily obligatory for the trial Court to determine the provisional rent under section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, (for short the Act'), the same was deter,mined by the learned Additional Civil Judge by his order dated 22.10.1997. The learned trial Court, after considering the pleadings of the parties, determined the rent @ Rs. 500/ - per month for 54 months amounting to Rs. 27,000/-. Interest Rs. 3712.50 p. was also added @ 6% per annum. Thus according to the learned trial Court, the rent determined was in all Rs. 30,712.50 p. The learned trial Court also directed the defendant to pay the future rent in accordance with the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Act. 3. On appeal, the learned appellate Court reversed the above order on the ground that there was no documentary evidence produced by the parties to enable the Court to determine the provisional rent on that basis. There was the averment of the plaintiff and denial of the same by the defendant. The learned appellate Court was of the view that since the Act has been enacted for the benefit of the tenants, rent at the lower side must be preferred. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court has correctly determined the provisional rent and there was no justification for interfering with the order of the learned trial Court at the appellate stage. The learned appellate Court has not advanced any reason which prevailed over the appellate Court for taking a different view. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court has correctly determined the provisional rent and there was no justification for interfering with the order of the learned trial Court at the appellate stage. The learned appellate Court has not advanced any reason which prevailed over the appellate Court for taking a different view. 6. Learned counsel has cited the ruling in Rajendra Kumar Joshi v. Veena Rani, AIR 1991 SC 259 . He has submitted that if the defendant felt aggrieved by the averments made by the plaintiff, he should have filed a suit for determination of reasonable or standard rent. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is a settled law that for determination of provisional rent, the Court has to consider the pleadings of the parties, the documents produced by them and the other facts and circumstances which may be relevant for the above purpose. Unfortunately this is one of those cases where there is no written agreement or rent-note available between the parties. The tenancy is oral. No rent receipts were passed between the parties. Hence the only material available in the instant case for determination of provisional rent is the respective pleading of the parties. The plaintiff has averred that the rent was Rs. 500/- whereas the defendant has averred that the rent was Rs. 350/- only. In such a case, it cannot be gainsaid that the Court countenance practical difficulty in provisionally determining the rent because no relevant or helpful material is available on the record. It is pleading versus pleading. 8. For the above reasons, I am not inclined to interfere with the view taken by the appellate Court. The rent is after all determined provisionally.For the above reasons, do not find any substance in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******