JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of both the parties the appeal is finally heard. 2. The brief facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction against the defendants. It is alleged by the plaintiff that two premises were let out and the defendants were paying the rent of one premises at the rate of Rs. 1800/- per month, whereas for other premises rent was Rs. 1300/- per month. According to the plaintiff which were the last paid rents of the two premises. The defendants in their reply seriously contested the facts alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint and submitted that the one premises initially was let out only at the rent of Rs. 500/- per month and subsequently because of surrender of some of the portion of the premise the rent was reduced to Rs. 300/- per month. For second premises it is stated in the written statement by the defendants that the rent of Rs. 1300/- was never agreed upon nor it was paid but for second premises rent was only Rs. 700/- per month. The plaintiff submitted the documents including the photostat copy of the cash book wherein the rent of the premises was recorded by the plaintiff. The plaintiff relied upon the admission of the defendant recorded on the bottom of the page No. 52 the cash book wherein according to the plaintiff. Defendants admitted Rs. 8254/- as determined and admitted the same to be payable to the plaintiffs, whereas the defendants- appellant placed on record a certified copy obtained from the Municipal Board, Raisinghnagar. 3. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments determined the rent by impugned order dated 30th May, 2000 holding the rent of the premises as 1800/- per month and 1300/- per month and directed the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent, i.e. Rs. 1,34,954/- and pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 3100/- per month, which was provisional rent determined by the Court below. Aggrieved against the order dated 30th May, 2000 the appellant-defendant preferred the present appeal before this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. 1,34,954/- and pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 3100/- per month, which was provisional rent determined by the Court below. Aggrieved against the order dated 30th May, 2000 the appellant-defendant preferred the present appeal before this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted the copy of the cash book which was submitted by the plaintiff which shows that the documents are not reliable upon because of the fact that they are not in consonance with even the pleadings of the plaintiff for which learned counsel for the appellant tried to point out certain entries to show that these entries clearly prove that the allegations levelled by the plaintiff in the plaint are not correct. One premises which was first let out in the year 1980 as alleged in plaint at the rate of Rs. 1800/- per month stands falsified by the entries made in the cash book by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant further seriously objected regarding the creditability of the alleged endorsement at page No. 52 of the cash book and submitted that this was not of the defendants and also submitted that even this endorsement of Rs. 8254/- does not bear the signature of any of the defendants and therefore no liability can be fastened to make this document reliable. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions and pointed out some infirmities in the pleas taken by the defendants in the written statement and also submitted that defendant appellant deliberately suppressed the rent and receipts which were given to the appellant by the landlord and also suppressed the account books to show the rent which was paid by the tenants to the landlord. 7. After hearing the arguments and perusing the record, I find that at this stage, the copies of the statement of account produced by the plaintiff cannot be relied upon unless it is proved by evidence and the infirmities shown by the learned counsel for the appellant which are not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent in as much as according to the learned counsel for the respondents there were number of transactions between the landlord and tenant and they were usually getting the goods from the shop of the landlord. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent tried to justify some entries made in the cash book, any how at this stage, these documents nowhere disclose that rent of the premises was Rs. 1800/- per month from the year 1980 or Rs. 1300/- of the other premises as alleged by the plaintiff. 8. So far as the endorsement, which was vehemently relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent with respect to the admission of dues of Rs. 8254/- is concerned. It is relevant to mention here that the handwriting of the defendants has already been denied by the defendant. It does not bear signature of the defendant. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that this defendant being the same defendant who made this endorsement, whether this amount was due against the rent or not and it is also not clear from this endorsement whether this amount is against any dues of goods or not. At this stage this cash book for this cannot be relied upon. 9. From the certified copies which were obtained by the defendant-tenant from the Municipal Board, Raisinghnagar, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon admission of the plaintiff wherein the plaintiff submitted an application stating that Ashish Kumar who is the appellant No. 1 is the tenant in the premises of the plaintiff and paying the rent at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month. I found that there is no explanation with respect to admission of the plaintiff, therefore, the learned trial Court committed serious illegality in ignoring the application of the plaintiff in writing which has been filed in the Municipal Board, Raisinghnagar wherein there is an admission of the rent of Rs. 1000/- which appears to be prima facie sufficient to prove the contention of the defendant in written statement that the rent of one premises after reduction was 300 Rupees and for other premises rent was 700 Rupees. 10. Therefore, in my opinion, the rent of the premises determined by the Court below appears to be contrary to the material available on record and therefore, the order dated 30th May, 2000 deserves to be set aside. The trial court is directed to recalculate the rent provisionally at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month after hearing both the parties and determined the rent from which date the rents is due in the defendants. The trial court is directed to recalculate the rent provisionally at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month after hearing both the parties and determined the rent from which date the rents is due in the defendants. An observation made in this order will not effect in final decision or merit of the case. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. No order as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******