Judgment K.C. Sharma, J.-Through this misc. appeal under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 the appellant seeks to quash the order dated 20.11.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur by which the learned Judge having determined the provisional rent and has directed the defendant appellant to pay to the plaintiff respondent a sum of Rs. 1,08,000/-for a period of 36 months @ Rs. 3,000/-per month i.e., for the period prior to filing of the suit, and Rs. 75,000/-for a period of 25 months @ Rs. 3,000/-i.e., from October, 2002 to October 2004. 2. It appears from the impugned order that the defendant appellant in her written statement has inter alia averred that her husband late Dinesh Banshiwal has continuously paid the rent of the premises from January, 1999 to May, 2002 to one Kamal Bhatt at the rate of Rs. 3,000/-per month. However, the plaintiff has filed an affidavit of said Shri Kamal Bhatt, who has categorically denied the averments of the defendant. The learned Additional District Judge while determing the provisional rent has come to a conclusion that Shri Kamal Bhatt, whom the defendant alleged to have paid the rent is neither the land lord nor is the power of attorney of lane lord. Therefore, the defendant has not been able to prove that she has paid the monthly rent of the premises either to plaintiff Bhagwan Das Tolai or his power of attorney/legal representative. 3. The case of the defendant appellant is that her husband has already paid monthly rent to one Kamal Bhatt for the period from January, 1999 to May, 2002, while the plaintiff respondent specifically pleaded that said Shri Kamal Bhatt was neither the landlord nor his legal representative. Evidently, the dispute in the suit is with regard to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, which in my considered view can only be decided finally at the time of decision of the suit. Evidently, the dispute in the suit is with regard to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, which in my considered view can only be decided finally at the time of decision of the suit. Sub-section 7 of Section 13 of the Act clearly provides that if in any suit referred to in Sub-section (3), there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant the Court shall decide the dispute finally at the time of decision of the suit and may, at that time, pass such orders regarding costs or interest, as having regard to the circumstances of the case, it deems fit. 4. In view of above, while maintaining the order impugned in this appeal, I direct the learned trial Court to decide the dispute as to amount of rent payable by the tenant at the time of decision of the suit, as provided for in Section 13(7) of the Act. 5. The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above.