ORDER 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.5.2006 passed by X Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No. 16-A/2005 whereby the learned Court decided the provisional rent @ Rs.2,500/- per month and directed the petitioner to deposit the rent w.e.f. three years prior to filing of the suit, the present petition has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that respondent filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner on 12.1.2005 on the ground under section 12 (1) (A) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 which shall be referred hereinafter as "Act") alleging that the petitioner is tenant in the suit accommodation on rent @ Rs.2,500/- per month and is in arrears of rent with effect from 5.6.1997 which has not been paid inspite of receipt of demand notice dated 6.11.2004. The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement in which the rate of rent and amount of arrears were disputed. It is alleged that petitioner is tenant on payment of rent @ Rs.700/- per month and rent has been paid to the respondent till 31st of May, 2004. After holding summary inquiry by the impugned order learned trial Court directed the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent @ Rs. 2,500/per month from the date of the suit and also directed that rent deposited by the petitioner shall not be disbursed to the respondent. 3. Mr. A.K. Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no basis for holding the rate of rent @ Rs.2,500/- per month. It is submitted that there was an agreement between the parties, from which it is evident that petitioner has paid the rent up to 31st of May, 2004. It is submitted that so far as demand notice is concerned, petitioner has filed written statement wherein it is mentioned that the matter has been settled between the parties by agreement dated 23.4.2004, therefore, petitioner approached the husband of respondent after receipt of notice who informed that notice was issued mistakenly. Being satisfied with the understanding given by the husband of respondent, no reply was given. It is also submitted that there is no documentary evidence on record on the basis of which it can be said that rate of rent was Rs.2,500/- at any point of time. Being satisfied with the understanding given by the husband of respondent, no reply was given. It is also submitted that there is no documentary evidence on record on the basis of which it can be said that rate of rent was Rs.2,500/- at any point of time. On the contrary, there is statement of petitioner in criminal case which was registered at crime No. 401/1998 in which petitioner has stated that petitioner is tenant @ Rs.700/- per month. 4. Shri A.K. Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of Jyotiraditya Scindia v. Smt. Vijayaraje Scindia [2006 (I) MPLJ 501], wherein this Court observed that, "Interference by this Court in a pending proceeding into a interlocutory order passed by a Court is required only if the order impugned can be termed as erroneous or illegal to such an extent that if interference is not made in the matter at that particular stage it will cause serious harm, injustice and prejudice to the aggrieved person which cannot be corrected at a later stage." 5. It is submitted that the petitioner is required to deposit rent @ Rs.25,000/- and if the petitioner fails then the defence of the petitioner will be struck off. 6. Shri S.L. Ahiwasi, learned counsel for the respondent submits that impugned order passed by the Court below is well reasoned order and while passing the order all aspects of the case has been taken into consideration by the learned Court below. It is also-submitted that the alleged Agreement Annexure P-6 has nothing to do with the rate of rent and arrears of rent. It is submitted that in para 4 there is interpolation and the word, ^^lkFk gh ebZ 2004 rd dk lEiw.kZ fdjk;k izkIr gks x;k** has been inserted after completion of the documents. It is submitted that this line has been typed after-wards. 7. From perusal of the record it is evident that petitioner is tailor by profession and is doing his tailoring business in the suit shop. Police statement of Ramesh Chand is on record, which was recorded on 10.10.1998 in which petitioner has stated that petitioner is tenant in the shop @ Rs.700/- per month. 8. Apart from this the Agreement (Annexure P-6) is on record which is dated 23.4.2004, which states that the respondent has received the rent up to May, 2004. Police statement of Ramesh Chand is on record, which was recorded on 10.10.1998 in which petitioner has stated that petitioner is tenant in the shop @ Rs.700/- per month. 8. Apart from this the Agreement (Annexure P-6) is on record which is dated 23.4.2004, which states that the respondent has received the rent up to May, 2004. Apart from this there is nothing on record in shape of documentary evidence on the basis of which it can be said that tenancy was @ Rs.700/- or Rs.2,500/-. So far as police statement is concerned, which is at page No.51, nothing has been stated in that regard in the petition before this Court or in the written statement filed before the Court below. 9. Apart from this, the police statement is of Ramesh Chand Malviya, petitioner himself who has stated that he is tenant @ Rs.700/- per month. It is yet to be decided the evidentiary value of this statement as it is statement which has been recorded by the police in a criminal case. Apart from this it is a self serving statement of the petitioner. So far as the Agreement Annexure P-6 is concerned, from perusal of the terms of documents it is clear that this Agreement has taken place between the petitioner and husband of the respondent on 23.4.2004, which mainly relates to the criminal case pending between the parties. In para No.4, it is stated that the husband of the respondent shall not fight for eviction of shop. After completion of this sentence, there is full stop and thereafter the words, ^^lkFk gh ebZ 2004 rd dk lEiw.kZ fdjk;k izkIr gks x;k** has been mentioned. It is argued by the respondent that this line has been added and the space between the earlier line and this line is short in comparison of other lines. The allegation is that this line has been inserted after execution of the Agreement which has yet to be decided at the time of trial of the suit. However, there is no justification that at the time of execution of Agreement (Annexure P-6) which mainly relates to criminal case why the rate of rent was not stated in the Agreement while it is mentioned that arrears has been paid. 10. Petitioner who is widow has alleged arrears of rent with effect from 5.6.1997. Suit has been filed on 12.1.2005. 10. Petitioner who is widow has alleged arrears of rent with effect from 5.6.1997. Suit has been filed on 12.1.2005. Petitioner has claimed the arrears only with effect from three years prior to the filing of the suit and the learned Court below has directed to deposit the arrears with effect from 12.1.2005 only. No arrears has been claimed from the petitioner by the respondent from 5.6.1997 to 11.1.2002 and no direction has been made by the learned Court below for payment of rent from 12.1.2002 to 12.1.2005. Since, the notice was given which was duly received by the petitioner and no reply of which has been given by the petitioner, which prima fade implies that the facts stated in the notice were not disputed by the petitioner. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, if petitioner deposits the rent @ Rs. 2,500/- per month w.e.f. 12.1.2005, no injustice will cause to the petitioner and there is no error in passing the order by the learned Court below which will cause injury to the petitioner, which cannot be corrected at the later stage. 12. So far as the observation of the learned Court below that the rent shall be deposited by the petitioner, which shall not be withdrawn by the respondent appears not to be correct. Respondent, who is widow is the owner of the suit property and petitioner is in occupation of the accommodation. Even if ultimately, it is found that the petitioner is tenant of the lesser amount then too it can be adjusted in the rent or the respondent can be directed to refund the amount. 13. In view of this the petition is disposed of with a short direction that the petitioner shall deposit the rent as per the impugned order and so far as the condition not to withdraw the amount imposed on the respondent stands quashed. Learned trial Court shall decide the suit on merit without being impressed by any of the observations made by this Court hereinabove. No order as to costs.