JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition under section 115 CPC has been filed by the petitioner-defendant against the appellate order dated 16.2.2001 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur by which he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-defendant and upheld the order dated 13.7.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby he determined the provisional rent under section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent& Eviction)Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950') at the rate of Rs. 400/-p.m. for the shop in question with effect from 1.6.1994 to 1.7.1999. 2. The necessary facts for disposal of this revision petition, in short, are as follows:- The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent on various grounds against the petitioner-defendant in the lower court on 29.11.1997 stating that there is a shop mentioned in para 2 of the plaint and on 1.2.1993, it was given to petitioner-defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 300/- p.m. On22.1.1993, the petitioner-defendant has deposited Rs. 5000/- as advance for the purpose of paying rent. It was further stated in the plaint that petitioner-defendant did not make payment of rent since 1.2.1993 and requested the respondent-plaintiff to adjust the amount of rent from Rs. 5000/-paid by him as advance and, therefore, the respondent-plaintiff adjusted the amount of rent for the period from 1.2.1993 to 31.3.1994 at the rate of Rs. 300/- p.m. from Rs. 5000/- deposited by the petitioner-defendant as advance. The further case of the respondent-plaintiff was that the rent of the shop in question was increased from Rs. 300/- p.m. to Rs. 400/- p.m. with effect from 1.4.1994 and on 10.4.1994, the petitioner-defendant executed a fresh rent note in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. So far as the amount of rent for two months i.e. April and May, 1994 is concerned, that was adjusted from the balance amount from Rs. 5000/- and, thereafter, since 1.6.1994, no rent has been paid by the petitioner-defendant and thus, the petitioner-defendant has committed default in payment of rent for more than six months and the respondent-plaintiff has sought eviction of the petitioner-defendant on this ground also, apart from other grounds taken by him in his plaint. 5000/- and, thereafter, since 1.6.1994, no rent has been paid by the petitioner-defendant and thus, the petitioner-defendant has committed default in payment of rent for more than six months and the respondent-plaintiff has sought eviction of the petitioner-defendant on this ground also, apart from other grounds taken by him in his plaint. The petitioner-defendant contested the suit of the respondent-plaintiff by filing a written statement and in that written statement, it was pleaded by the petitioner-defendant that shop in question was given to him by the respondent-plaintiff on monthly rent of Rs. 200/- and not @ Rs. 300/- p.m. It was further averred by the petitioner-defendant that Rs. 10,000/- were already with the respondent-plaintiff as advance for payment of rent. The petitioner-defendant has further averred that it is wrong to say that rent was increased from Rs. 300/- p.m. to Rs. 400/-p.m. with effect from 1.4.1994 and it is also wrong to say that petitioner-defendant has committed default in payment of rent, but the fact is that he has paid rent upto April, 1995 at the rate of Rs. 200/-p.m., for which receipts have been filed by him. The learned trial court framed issues on 28.7.1999 and issue No. 5 was to the effect whether rate of rent for the shop in question was Rs. 200/-p.m. or not. By the impugned order dated 13.7.1999, the learned trial court (Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur) determined the provisional rent under section 13(3) of the Act of 1950 at the rate of Rs. 400/- p.m. holding inter-alia that though from the receipts produced by the petitioner-defendant; it appears that rent was being paid by him at the rate of Rs. 200/- p.m., but since a fresh rent deed was executed between the parties and according to the terms of that rent deed, it transpires that with effect from 1.6.1994, the rent, which was to be charged from the petitioner-defendant, was Rs. 400/- p.m. and thus, on the basis of that rent deed, the learned trial court determined the provisional rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- p.m. from 1.6.1994 to 1.7.1999. Aggrieved from the said order of the learned trial court dated 13.7.1999, the petitioner-defendant preferred civil misc. appeal before the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which was transferred to the learned Addl. District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The learned Addl. 400/- p.m. from 1.6.1994 to 1.7.1999. Aggrieved from the said order of the learned trial court dated 13.7.1999, the petitioner-defendant preferred civil misc. appeal before the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which was transferred to the learned Addl. District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The learned Addl. District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, through his judgment dated 16.2.2001 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-defendant and upheld the order dated 13.7.1999 passed by the learned trial court. Aggrieved from the judgment dated 16.2.2001 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur and order dated 13.7.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, the petitioner-defendant has preferred this revision petition. 3. In this revision, the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant is that since there are rent receipts showing that the rent of the shop in question was being paid at the rate of Rs. 200/- p.m. by the petitioner-defendant to the respondent-plaintiff, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 13(3) of the Act of 1950, the learned trial court should have determined the provisional rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- p.m. and not at the rate of Rs. 400/- p.m., as the last paid rent was Rs. 200/- p.m. and thus, the orders passed by both the courts below suffer from material irregularity and they should be set aside in this revision petition. 4. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff has argued that the orders passed by both the courts below are based on the material available on record. He has further argued that petitioner-defendant has agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- p.m. from 1.4.1994 and on 10.4.1994, the petitioner-defendant himself executed a rent deed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff showing agreed rent to be Rs. 400/- p.m. and thus, no mistake was committed by the courts below in determining the provisional rent @ Rs. 400/- p.m. and this revision petition be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and gone through the record. 6. In M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur ( AIR 1972 SC 2379 ) , it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115 CPC is a limited one. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and gone through the record. 6. In M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur ( AIR 1972 SC 2379 ) , it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115 CPC is a limited one. This section is not directed against Conclusions of law and fact in which question of jurisdiction is not involved. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred with approval the decisions of the Privy Council in Raja Amri Hassan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh ((1884) 11 Ind. App. 237(PC)) and in T.A. Balakrishna Udaya v. Vasudeva Ayyar ( AIR 1917 PC 71 ) . The Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted what the Privy Council had said in N.S. Venkatagiri Ayyangar v. Hindu Religious Endowments Board ( AIR 1949 PC 156 ) :- "Section 115 empowers the High court to satisfy itself on three matters;(a) that the order of the subordinate court is within its jurisdiction; (b) that the case is one in which the court ought to : exercise jurisdiction; and (c) that in exercising jurisdiction the court has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of some provisions of law, or with material irregularity, that is, by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision. And if the High Court is satisfied on those three matters, it has no power to interfere because it differs from the conclusions of the subordinate courts on questions of fact or law." 7. This Court in Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. v. Rajasthan Textile industries( AIR 1987 Raj. 60 ) has held that it is true that the discretionary orders passed by the trial court should not be lightly interfered with, but when the order is perverse or is contrary to the provisions of law, interference becomes inevitable for ends of justice. 8. Keeping the above principles in mind, the present revision is being decided. 9. In the file of the lower court, there is a rent deed dated 22.1.1993 executed between both the parties, which shows that rent of the shop in question was Rs. 300/- p.m. and this rent deed was filed by the plaintiff-respondent. 8. Keeping the above principles in mind, the present revision is being decided. 9. In the file of the lower court, there is a rent deed dated 22.1.1993 executed between both the parties, which shows that rent of the shop in question was Rs. 300/- p.m. and this rent deed was filed by the plaintiff-respondent. There is another rent deed dated 10.4.1994 filed by the plaintiff-respondent, which shows that rent was increased from Rs. 300/- p.m. to Rs. 400/- p.m. with effect from 1.4.1994. 10. From the side of the defendant-petitioner, some receipts showing payment of rent were filed and last receipt is dated 2.3.1995, which shows that rent was paid by the defendant-petitioner to the plaintiff-respondent at the rate of Rs. 200/- p.m. for the period from 1.3.1995 to 28.3.1995 and prior to that receipt, there are so-many receipts which also show that rent was being paid by the defendant-petitioner to the plaintiff-respondent at the rate of Rs. 200/- p.m. 11. There is also rent deed dated 30.3.1993 executed between the parties which shows that agreed rent was Rs. 200/- p.m. 12. The learned trial court came to the conclusion that no doubt receipts produced by the defendant-petitioner show that the rent was being paid by him to the plaintiff-respondent at the rate of Rs. 200/- p.m., but a fresh rent deed dated 10.4.1994 was executed between the parties, which shows that agreed rent was Rs. 400/- and, therefore, the learned trial court determined the provisional rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- p.m. 13. The question that arises for consideration, is whether the above findings of the learned trial court, which have been approved by the learned appellate court in appeal, are correct one or not. 14. For convenience, Section 13(3) of the Act of 1950 is being reproduced herein-below:- "13. Eviction of tenants- (1) .............. (2) ............. 400/- p.m. 13. The question that arises for consideration, is whether the above findings of the learned trial court, which have been approved by the learned appellate court in appeal, are correct one or not. 14. For convenience, Section 13(3) of the Act of 1950 is being reproduced herein-below:- "13. Eviction of tenants- (1) .............. (2) ............. (3) In a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (a) of sub-section (1) with or without any of the other grounds referred to in that sub section, the Court shall, on the first date 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. Such amount shall be calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid or was payable for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent there to upto the end of the month previous to that in which such determination is made together with interest on such amount calculated at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date when any such amount was payable upto the date of determination. Provided that while determining the amount under this sub-section, the Court shall not take into account the amount of rent which was barred by limitation on the date of the filing of the suit." 15. The expression "provisionally determine" is very important here. It is provisional determination which means that it is not final but is only interim til the final decision of the court and subject to adjustment as provided under section 13(8) of the Act of 1950. 16. The detailed procedure has not been provided in 13(3) of the Act of 1950, as the determination of provisional amount is subject to revision at the final decision of the suit. The excess or less paid amount may be adjusted at that time under sub-section (8) and similarly any dispute raised under sub-section (7) may also be finalised at the time of decision. The excess or less paid amount may be adjusted at that time under sub-section (8) and similarly any dispute raised under sub-section (7) may also be finalised at the time of decision. Therefore, at this stage of provisional determination, the detailed evidence is not to be recorded and elaborate procedure of CPC is not to be followed. The sub-section (3) itself provides following factors to be considered for this purpose:- 1. The Court shall hear the parties. 2. It shall determine the amount provisionally on the basis of material on record i.e. pleadings and other documents submitted along with. 3. Calculation shall be made on the basis of rent last paid and interest will be allowed on arrears of rent at the rate of six percent per annum. 4. The time barred arrears of rent shall not be taken into consideration for such calculation. 17. Since in the present case the rent last paid was Rs. 200/- as is very much clear from the receipt dated 2.3.1995, therefore, it can be concluded that the last paid rent was Rs. 200/-. 18. There is one more aspect that rent deed dated 10.4.1994 executed between the parties shows that agreed rent was Rs. 400/- p.m., but the receipt dated 2.3.1995, which is subsequent to execution of that rent deed dated 10.4.1994, shows that rent was being paid by the defendant-petitioner to the plaintiff-respondent at the rate of Rs. 200/- p.m. Therefore, even after the execution of rent deed dated 10.4.1994, the plaintiff-respondent accepted the rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- p.m. from the defendant-petitioner, as is clear from the rent receipts available on record. 19. Thus, the provisional determination of rent by both the courts below at the rate of Rs. 400/- p.m. appears on the very face to be illegal and both the courts below have committed jurisdictional error in determining the rent at such rate and they should have determined the rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- p.m. as it was the rent last paid by the defendant-petitioner to the plaintiff-respondent. 20. For the reasons stated above, it is held that the orders dated 16.2.2001 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur and 13.7.1999 passed by the learned Addl. 200/- p.m. as it was the rent last paid by the defendant-petitioner to the plaintiff-respondent. 20. For the reasons stated above, it is held that the orders dated 16.2.2001 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur and 13.7.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur are contrary to the provisions of Section 13(3) of the Act of 1950 and interference becomes inevitable for ends of justice and they are liable to be set aside and this revision is liable to be allowed.Accordingly, this revision petition filed by the defendant-petitioner Khursid Akram is allowed and the impugned orders dated 16.2.2001 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur and 13.7.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Civil. Judge (J.D.) No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur are set aside. The learned Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur is directed to determine provisional rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- p.m. It is made clear that this provisional rent is not final, but is only interim till the final decision of the court and subject to adjustment as provided under section 13(8) of the Act of 1950. No order as to costs.Revision Allowed-Order of Provisional Rent @ Rs. 400/- p.m., Set Aside. *******