JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition against the order dated 15.7.2000, of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1 Sikar, whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred against the order determining the provisional rent. 2. Mr. Dhand contends that there is dispute as to the ownership of the property and, therefore, the trial Court should not have determined the provisional rent. His objection is with regard to the first part of the order wherein the trial Court has observed that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He relies on the case of Ramwatar v. Bhanwar Singli & Ors., S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 288/1996, decided on 24.2.1997 . 3. The trial Court has not finally decided the question of ownership of the property. For the limited purpose of determination of the provisional rent, it has been stated that prima facie it was proved that the plaintiff was the landlord of the shop and the defendant was the tenant. It is obvious that the case of the defendant- petitioners is not likely to be prejudiced by these observations. A decision is to be made in the suit as to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties exists or not. 4. As to the case relied on by Mr. Dhand, it may be stated that in that case the defendants had filed a registered sale deed executed in their favour by the father of the plaintiff. Thus there was strong documentary evidence in favour of the defendant-tenant. It is on the special fact situation that that case was decided. 5. It can not be said that the trial Court has committed jurisdictional error in determining the provisional rent. The Appellate Court has agreed with the finding of the trial Court. 6. No case of interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out. The revision petition is dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******