Honble KOKJE, J.–Karna Ram and Mishri Lal were father and son respectively and owned a property jointly in their name. One Bhagirath was inducted by them as a tenant in the premises. Karna Ram and Mishri Lal sued Bhagirath for eviction from the premises. During the pendency of this suit Karna Ram died and his other representatives were brought on record while Mishri Lal continued to be the co-plaintiff. Mishri Lal on his own entered into a compromise with Bhagirath and on the basis of he compromise a decree of eviction was passed against Bhagirath accordingly to Mishri Lal on 16.7.75 Bhagirath handed over possession and one Basti Ram was inducted as a new tenant on 19.7.75. An appeal was filed by the LRs of Karna Ram other than Mishri Lal making Mishri Lal and Basti Ram as the respondents. In that appeal the suit was decreed against Bhagirath. Against the judgment and decree a second appeal was filed by Bhagirath. During the pendency of second appeal, Bhagirath also died and Mishri Lal moved an application to be recognised as his legal representatives claiming that he was adopted by Bhagirath as his son. Basti Ram also died and his son Munni Lal continued to be the tenant. (2). Mishri Lal sued Munni Lal son of Basti Ram for eviction by filing a suit from which this revision petition arises. In this suit the trial court determined rent under Section 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. Against this an appeal was filed under Sec.22 of the Act by Munni Lal, the revision petitioner. The appellate Court maintained the order, against which this revision petition has been filed. (3). The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is being made to pay rent for the same premises twice. When the rent is being deposited in the second appeal pending between the parties, the rent will also have to be paid in the present suit for the same premises if the impugned order is allowed to stand. The learned counsel submits that in such a situation the trial court should not have determined the rent because once the rent is determined under Sec.13(3) of the Act, non deposit of the amount will result in striking out the defence of the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that in such a situation the trial court should not have determined the rent because once the rent is determined under Sec.13(3) of the Act, non deposit of the amount will result in striking out the defence of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the non petitioner on the other hand submits that when admittedly the revision petitioner Munnilal claims that his father Basti Ram was a tenant in the premises, he is estopped from claiming tenancy in favour of Bhagirath also setting up himself as adopted son of Bhagirath and tenant of the same premises on the basis of that adoption. The learned counsel therefore pointed out that on the admitted facts in this case rent has to be determined and the lower court had no other option but to proceed on the assumption that Munnilal was a tenant in the premises being LR of Basti Ram who was a tenant on the basis of rent deed dated 19.7.75 executed between the parties. (4). Having heard the learned counsel and having perused the record, I am of the view that this revision petition deserves to be dismissed. There is no doubt that in the pleadings in the suit, Munni Lal, the revision petitioner, has admitted himself to be a tenant of Mishri Lal as a son of Basti Ram in whose favour a rent deed was executed on 19.7.75. If Munni Lal also wants to claim to be LR of Bhagirath, the earlier tenant, he is free to take such plea at his own cost. It is not a case where rent is being sought to be realised for the same premises twice from Munni Lal in the same capacity. If he chooses to have it both ways he has to pay the price. It is a case where rival claims of tenancy of two separate persons is said to have merged by succession into one and devolved on a single person. In such a case the person concerned has to choose as to which legacy he will claim and which he will forego. If he claims to be adopted son of Bhagirath and therefore claims to have become tenant in place of Bhagirath, his claim that he is son of Basti Ram, the other rival tenant and became a tenant in that capacity, will get diluted if not totally wiped out. If he claims to be adopted son of Bhagirath and therefore claims to have become tenant in place of Bhagirath, his claim that he is son of Basti Ram, the other rival tenant and became a tenant in that capacity, will get diluted if not totally wiped out. If he does not choose to abandon one claim and chooses to fight in both capacities then he has to comply with the law in both the proceedings and has to deposit rent in both the proceedings. In these circumstances I do not find that the courts below have committed any error in determining the rent. (5). Moreover, the determination of rent under Sec.13(3) of the Act is a mandatory provision and the court cannot be restrained from following it. The fact that once the rent is determined, deposit under sub section (4) of Sec. 13 will have to be made, failing which the defence may be struck out is no reason for twisting the law or arresting its operation in favour of a person who is claiming to be a split-personality, one half claiming to be with the original tenant Bhagirath and the other half with the later tenant in the premises. The revision petition has no force. It is dismissed.