JUDGMENT 1. - Heard rival submissions of the respective parties and perused the impugned order dated 8.7.2004 by which the application u/O. 24 Rule 1 CPC filed by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the main relief is claimed for eviction whereas provisions of. Order 24, Rule 1 is for recovery of the rent. The trial Court observed that in the present suit joint question of eviction and recovery of rent is involved, therefore, the outstanding rent amount was not allowed to be deposited u/R. 24 R. 1. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in case of Sohan Lal v. Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Bharatpur, reported in WLC (Raj.) 1997(3) 681 wherein this Court in para 7 has observed as under : "Now the only question which remains to be considered is as to whether the provisions contained in Order 24, Rule 1 CPC are attract in the instant case. Order 24, Rule 1 deals with the payment into the Court in satisfaction of a claim after institution of a suit and before the decree. Rule contemplates an unconditional deposit of an amount of money in Court by the defendant. I am of the view that the provisions contained in Order 24, Rule 1 CPC are not in conflict with the provisions contained in the Act of 1950. A perusal of Section 13(3) of the Act goes to show that while determining the provisional rent the Court has to hear the parties and to consider the material on record. If any deposit is made under Order 24, Rule 1 CPC by the tenant before determination of the provisional rent, such deposit may form part of the material on record and it is for the trial Court while determining the provisional rent u/s. 13(3) of the Act to consider or not to consider such deposits. Judicial discretion give to the trial Court u/s. 13(3) of the Act is absolutely independent and if any deposit is made under Order 24, Rule 1 CPC it does not affect the rights of the parties provided u/s. 13(3) of the Act, 1950." 3. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the trial Court has not rightly appreciated the application under Order 24, Rule 1 CPC. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the trial Court has not rightly appreciated the application under Order 24, Rule 1 CPC. In view of this fact, the order dated 8.7.2004 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court to re-hear the matter in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in case of Sohan Lal (supra) and shall pass the fresh order. It is also expected from the trial Court decide the suit expeditously. 4. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands allowed.Writ petition allowed. *******