JUDGMENT 1. 1. This is a revision petition against the order of learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 17.3.2001 by which he dismissed the appeal of the petitioners which was filed against the order of learned trial court which had determined interim rent as per provisions of Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. 2. The case has a long history. Mohd. Ismail, Kamruddin and Imamuddin are three brothers. Smt. Zenab is the wife of Imamuddin. The suit property which are some shops were in the tenancy of Mohd. Ismail and Kamruddin. They had taken the shops on rent from Bhanu Prakash Singh and Smt. Sarita Kumari. Imamuddin carried on business of tailoring and was also dealing with sale and purchase of properties. Bhanu Prakash Singh and Smt. Sarita Kumari wanted to sell their three shops, therefore, Mohd. Ismail and Kamruddin had a talk with him. Then they informed their brother and his wife who are respondents in this revision petition. Imamuddin told that to deal with the sale and purchase of a property was a risky job, therefore, he will purchase the properties for them. Then a sum of Rs. 60,000/- was given to the respondents on 1.1.94 and Rs. 69,000/- on 4.5.94. Respondents executed a document on 4.5.94 and assured that when the transaction would be completed, registered sale letter would be executed. Then both the parties executed an agreement on 22.8.95 wherein respondents agreed to execute the sale deed and also agreed that the upper portion as well as stair case would be used by respondents and in lieu thereof plot No. D-32 measuring 100 square yards would be given. Imamuddin and Smt. Zenab got the registered sale deed in their favour but did not execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioners. Instead Imamuddin and Smt. Zenab filed a suit for eviction against the petitioners on the ground of personal and bonafide need and default in payment of rent alleging that they ere earlier tenants of Bhanu Prakash Singh and Smt. Sarita on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- but ever since the property was purchased from Bhanu Prakash on 16.5.94 they became the landlords and there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between them. 500/- but ever since the property was purchased from Bhanu Prakash on 16.5.94 they became the landlords and there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between them. In the written statement, it was admitted that the property belonged to Bhanu Prakash Singh and Smt. Sarita Singh and the same was taken on rent but the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in this case was denied. It was specifically stated in the written statement that there was a talk of the sale of the property with Bhanu Prakash Singh and Smt. Sarita Singh which was to be purchased through the plaintiff and an amount of Rs. 1,29,000/- was paid and agreement was executed. It was specifically pleaded that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties and that the plaintiffs got the sale deed executed in their favour on the basis of fraud while the sale deed was to be executed in favour of the defendants. It was also stated that a suit for specific performance was pending before the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, therefore, plaintiffs were not entitled for the rent and eviction. 3. But the learned trial court by order dated 11.8.99 came to the conclusion that prima facie there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and, hence, determined the rent. On appeal, the order was confirmed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit which was pending before the learned Additional District Judge No. 2 was decreed on the same date when the appeal was dismissed and it has been ordered that a sum of Rs. 1,29,000/- be refunded along with the interest. Decree for specific performance of contract was not granted. This judgment has been passed in Civil Suit No. 54/98 against which an appeal has been preferred by Mohd. Ismail and Kamruddin in which notices have been issued and on the stay application, Imamuddin and Smt. Zenab have been directed not to alienate the property under dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when admittedly there was a suit between the parties about the specific performance of the constract and the same has been decreed by the same Judge who has decided the appeal, it means that there did not exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was also submitted that there was no attornment. It was also submitted that there was no attornment. It has also been submitted that the order determining the rent should be set aside in this revision petition. He submitted that there is settled law that prima facie when there did not exist relationship of landlord and tenant, the interim rent should not be determined and this way the learned trial court as well as Appellate Court have committed illegality by exercising the jurisdiction given to them. Therefore, he submitted that the order determining the rent should be set aside in this revision petition. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that attornment is not legally necessary to create relationship of landlord and tenant and even if there was an agreement between the landlord and tenant, liability to pay rent does not cease. So far as scope of revision is concerned, it has been submitted that when there are concurrent findings, the revisional court should not interfere. _ 6. In this case, the situation is a bit strange. The parties are real brothers. Mohd. Ismail and Kamruddin were the tenants of Bhanu Prakash Singh and Smt. Sarita Singh. A document was executed by respondents Ismail and Smt. Zenab to get the sale deed registered. So, when there was such an agreement -between the parties and the defendants had paid a sum of Rs. 1,29,000/- to get the sale deed executed in their favour from Smt. Sarita and Bhanu Prakash Singh through plaintiff and the plaintiff as alleged got the registered sale deed executed in his favour, I am of the view that there did not exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Of course, defendants were tenants of Bhanu Prakash Singh and Smt. Sarita but inspite of payment of Rs. 1,29,000/- by the defendants to the plaintiffs, they got the sale deed executed in their favour from Bhanu Prakash Singh and Smt. Sarita and then they say that they gave a notice on 30.11.94 that henceforth they would be the landlords and the defendants would be the tenants. Of course, there is a judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Abdul Hamid v. Samad Khan, (1985(2) Rent Control Reported 537) that attornment was not legally necessary to create relationship but there is nothing on record that the defendant-petitioners ever accepted Imamuddin and Smt. Zenab as their landlords. Of course, there is a judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Abdul Hamid v. Samad Khan, (1985(2) Rent Control Reported 537) that attornment was not legally necessary to create relationship but there is nothing on record that the defendant-petitioners ever accepted Imamuddin and Smt. Zenab as their landlords. It might be true as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that even if there is sale then agreement of sale between landlord and tenant, liability to pay rent does not cease but that is not the case here as originally the landlords were Bhanu Prakash Singh and Smt. Sarita and in between the whole story as stated above came up which has been found to be true by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2. The citations relied by the learned counsel for the respondents i.e. Jessia Thavamani v. Liakath Basha, (1997(1) Rent Control Reporter 147) ; Purshottam & Ors. v. Kanaiya Lal & Ors., (1995(2) Rent Control Reporter 192) ; and Joginder Kaur v. Hindu Undivided family of Kidar Nath & Sons & Ors., (2000(1) RLR 554) are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case because they deal with agreement of sale between the landlord and tenant and not of such a case because here prima facie it appears that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents cited Ganesh Narain v. Ranchor Das, (RLW 1978 page 388) in which Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 was considered and denial of relationship was made. It was held that even in such a case, the court was to determine the rent and interest in accordance with the provisions of Section 13(3) of the Act. But there is latest judgment of the Rajasthan High Court itself reported in 1997 WLC (Raj.) UC 336 : RLW 1997(3) Rajasthan Page 1721, Narain Singh v. Ram Gopal & Ors. according to which prima facie there should be relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties than only the rent is to be determined. In this case when in the facts there did not exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties even prima facie the order determining the interim rent cannot be said to be legal. according to which prima facie there should be relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties than only the rent is to be determined. In this case when in the facts there did not exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties even prima facie the order determining the interim rent cannot be said to be legal. Of course, there is concurrent finding of the courts below but when that is perverse in the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court can interfere in the revisional jurisdiction as it was held in Masjid Kacha Tank, Nahan v. Tuffail Mohammed, ( AIR 1991 SC 455 ) which has been cited by the learned counsel for the respondents. Hajari Ram v. Prema Ram & ors., (AIR 1993 Rajasthan 207) has also been cited by the learned counsel for the respondents to show that concurrent finding cannot be interfered but even in this citation it has been held that powers Under section 115 CPC are limited and can be interfered when exercise of jurisdiction is illegal or irregular by the subordinate courts. I find in the present case that it does require interference, there was no prima facie relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties on the date when the rent was determined. The orders of both the courts below were passed without jurisdiction or in exercise of jurisdiction illegally and material irregularity. 8. Consequently, the revision petition succeeds and the orders of the courts below are set aside. No order as to costs. However, the trial court will decide the suit expeditiously.Revision PEtition Succeeded. *******