JUDGMENT 1. 1. This civil misc. appeal under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (here-in-after referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order dated 26.2.2003 passed by the learned Add]. Distt. Judge No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 8/2003 whereby the provisional rent has been determined. 2. Briefly recapitulated, the relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the respondents-plaintiffs instituted a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the appellants-defendants interalia on the ground of default stating therein that the disputed property detailed in para 1 of the plaint was let-out to the defendants on 31.1.2000. The tenancy was oral and monthly rent was Rs. 4,800/-. The defendants paid rent upto January 2002 and thereafter since February 2002, they have failed to make payment of rent upto December 2002 and thus, have committed default in payment of rent for more than six months. The defendants contested the suit by if ling written statement. They admitted oral tenancy but denied other averment with regard to non-payment of rent. They further pleaded that the rent upto December 2002 has been paid and the rent of the disputed property was Rs. 800/- p.m. and not Rs. 4,800/- p.m. as pleaded by the plaintiffs. They, however, stated that the plaintiffs did not give any written receipt of rent. They have shown payment of rent @ Rs. 800/- p.m. in their Income-tax Return. The plaintiffs filed rejoinder along with their affidavits. The defendants also filed reply to the rejoinder along with affidavits. As the suit was also filed on the ground of default in payment of rent, the court below determined provisional rent as per the provisions of Section 13(3) of the Act. After hearing the parties and on the basis of the materials produced before it, the court below found primafacie that the agreed rent was Rs. 4,800/- p.m. and the defendants had not paid rent from February, 2002. So, the rent w.e.f. February 2002 to January 2003 i.e. for 12 months 0 Rs. 4,800/- p.m. was found to be Rs. 57,600/- which was due and payable by the defendants along with interest of Rs. 1584/-. Thus, a sum of Rs. 4,800/- p.m. and the defendants had not paid rent from February, 2002. So, the rent w.e.f. February 2002 to January 2003 i.e. for 12 months 0 Rs. 4,800/- p.m. was found to be Rs. 57,600/- which was due and payable by the defendants along with interest of Rs. 1584/-. Thus, a sum of Rs. 59,184/- was determined and the defendants were directed to make payment or to deposit the aforesaid amount within a period of 15 days and to continue to deposit rent thereafter from month to month as per law. Aggrieved by the said order the tenants have preferred this appeal. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 4. It has been contended by Mr. Keshav Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the court below has failed to take into account the material on record. It has been argued that there is nothing on record to show that the agreed rate of rent between the parties was Rs. 4,800/- p.m. or the rent was last paid at this rate. The defendants had filed their income-tax returns for the period from 1999 to 2002 in which the payment of rent of the disputed premises has been shown to be Rs. 9,600 p.a. which fact has not been controverted by any document by the plaintiffs and the learned court below has not considered those documents. It has also been argued that the affidavits filed by and on behalf of the plaintiffs are not reliable because the deponents are interested persons. 5. Mr. Ajay Gupta, appearing on behalf of the respondents plaintiffs has supported the order of the court below and has straneously controverted the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants defendants. 6. Section 13(3) of the Act casts a duty on the court to determine provisional rent if the suit for eviction is based on grounds set-forth in clause (a) to sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act with or without any other grounds. The provisional rent is to be determined under this sub-section after hearing the parties and on the basis of the material on record. The court has to calculate the rent at the rate at which it was last paid or was payable for the period for which tenant had made default. The provisional rent is to be determined under this sub-section after hearing the parties and on the basis of the material on record. The court has to calculate the rent at the rate at which it was last paid or was payable for the period for which tenant had made default. This determination of rent being provisional is subject to adjustment, corrections and modifications subsequently when the suit is finally disposed of. It is now well settled that the object of sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act is to afford protection to the tenant and to give him one more opportunity to make the payment of arrears of rent where the tenancy is oral and there is no written agreement or rent note between the parties and no receipts of rent are issued by the landlord to the tenants. The materials on record available for determination of the provisional rent consists only of the pleadings of the parties, their conduct and surrounding circumstances including affidavits or some other documents throwing light about the agreed rent or the rate of rent at which it was last paid. In this regard location of the property and the prevailing rents in the locality may also be useful for determining the provisional rent. 7. As indicated above, in the instant case, admittedly, the tenancy is oral and there is no written receipt of the rent. A perusal of the plaint shows that four rooms, kitchen, latrine and bathroom were let-out to the defendants. The plaintiffs have also filed cheques Nos.212212 dated 31.1.2000 and 212213 which have been admittedly issued by the defendants and they are for Rs. 4,800/- each. The plaintiffs have also filed the affidavits by Shyam Babu (Annexure-7) and Bihari Lai (Annexure-8). Behari Lai is a tenant of two rooms flat in the same premises and is paying Rs. 2,400/- per month as rent from the year 1999 and he has deposed that he was present when the disputed flat of four rooms was rented out to the defendants on 31.1.2000. The plaintiffs have also submitted counterfoils of receipts of rent of Rs. 5,000/- of the same premises which are Annexures 2 to 5 issued in favour of the earlier tenant Akhilesh Kumar, Tripathi Pharma. The plaintiffs have also submitted counterfoils of receipts of rent of Rs. 5,000/- of the same premises which are Annexures 2 to 5 issued in favour of the earlier tenant Akhilesh Kumar, Tripathi Pharma. It is also not in dispute that the premises in question are situated at the main road of Shiv Marg, Bani Park in Plot No.B-4 which is in the vicinity of Collectorate, Sessions Court etc. The next door neighbour Shri V.K. Mathur, Advocate and another neighbour Sudhir Soni and Madho Bihari have also filed their affidavits and lease-deeds Ex.12 and 13 and receipts Nos. 14 to 19 issued by these witnesses for their two rooms flats which show that the rent of Rs. 2,700/- p.m. or more is being charged for a two rooms flat situated in the neighbourhood and in the same locality. As against this evidence, the defendant tenants have submitted their income tax returns which are their own documents. Learned court below after considering the entire material on record has rightly come to the conclusion that the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 4,800/- p.m. and not Rs. 800/- p.m. as pleaded by the defendants and the rent from month of February 2002 has not been paid. 8. I have also considered the materials on record and I do not find any illegality or perversity in the approach of the learned court below. It cannot be said that the court below has not considered the material available on record or has decided the matter arbitrarily. The order impugned is based on a proper consideration of the materials available on record and all other surrounding circumstances and conduct of the parties as well as the affidavits filed on behalf of the parties and I do not find any cogent and valid reason to interfere with the impugned order. 9. In the result, the appeal being without any merit and substance deserves to be dismissed and hereby dismissed and the order of the court below is hereby affirmed.Appeal Dismissed. *******