JUDGMENT 1. - heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the revision petition and the orders of the learned Courts below impugned therein. 2. Though, the revision petition is titled under section 115 of the CPC but in fact it is under section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 5 (for short 'the Act, 1950'). 3. Be that as it may, no interference in the revision petition is called for. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kota on 8.8.1997 has been passed under section 12(4) of the Act, 1950 and an order on an interlocutory application. The learned S.D.O., Kota has declined to grant the interim relief in to favour of the petitioner. That has been confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Collector, Kota. These are only the interlocutory orders and thus non-interference therein in this revision petition will not result in causing any prejudice to the petitioner. 4. However, I find sufficient jurisdiction in the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the S.D.O., Kota may be directed to decide the main application expeditiously. It is tne application for restoration of the amenities and also it is to be decided expeditiously. 5. In the result, this revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, the learned S.D.O., Kota is directed to decide the application within a period of two months from the receipt of the copy of this order. 6. Consequent upon the dismissal of the revision petition the stay application filed therewith does not survive and the same is also dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******