JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred by the defendants aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.7.1998 passed by I ADJ, Sagar in Civil Suit No. 38-A/96. 2. The plaintiff Smt. Sushilabai has filed a civil suit for eviction and for recovery of rent as against the defendants M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. The suit has been decreed by the trial Court. Decree has been passed awarding the rent as per standard rent fixed by the Collector at the rate of Rs. 4,226/- per month w.e.f. 1.3.1993, mesne profit has been ordered to be paid at the said rate, during pendency of suit adjustment of the rent deposited has been ordered, the house was to be vacated on 30th September, 1998 with proportionate cost. 3. As the possession of the house has been handed over by the defendant-appellants on 14.5.1999, ejectment part of decree is not being challenged in this appeal. The only question agitated in this appeal by the counsel is that rent fixed by the Collector at the rate of Rs. 4,226/- per month could not have been ordered to be paid by the Court. 4. As per plaintiff the defendants were inducted as tenant for the period of 3 years as per rent note Ex. D-3, till the standard rent was fixed by the Collector, it was payable at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month, after 11 months rate of rent was required to be revised. Defendants did not comply with the aforesaid condition, after one year the defendant was requested to revise the rent. Defendant No. 2 filed an application before Rent Controller, Sagar for fixation of standard rent. Rent Controller after holding due enquiry fixed the standard rent of Rs. 4,226/- per month w.e.f. 15.3.1989, instead of several demands by plaintiff the rent was not paid at the rate of Rs. 4,226/-. The defendants caused damage to the house. Plaintiff wanted to get it repaired which was not possible without vacating the house, hence in the suit ejectment was sought. 5. The defendants in their written statement contended that in the agreement it was not mentioned that Collector/Rent Controller had the right to fix the rent, thus, plaintiff was not entitled to claim standard rent fixed arbitrarily by the Collector at rate of Rs. 5. The defendants in their written statement contended that in the agreement it was not mentioned that Collector/Rent Controller had the right to fix the rent, thus, plaintiff was not entitled to claim standard rent fixed arbitrarily by the Collector at rate of Rs. 4,226/-, the rent could not have been enhanced unilaterally, it was necessary to enter into an agreement as provided in rent note (Ex. D-3), after 11 months. As construction was not up to the mark, that was the reason the roof fell down, in the repair sum of Rs. 13,125/- was required and not Rs. 1,02,980/- as claimed by the plaintiff. 6. The trial Court has decreed the suit. Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree this appeal has been preferred. 7. Shri P.R. Bhave, learned senior counsel with Shri Bhanu Yadav for appellants, has submitted that the rent was to be mutually agreed as per agreement (Ex. D-3). There was no clause in empowering the Collector/ Rent Controller to fix the standard rent, it was arbitrarily fixed, as such the rent ought to have been ordered to be paid at the agreed rate of Rs. 2,000/- till the accommodation was vacated. 8. Shri D.S. Baghel, learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent, has supported the impugned judgment and decree, he submitted that application was jointly filed by defendant No. 2 and plaintiff before the Rent Controller for fixation of the standard rent, as no agreement could be reached in spite of the notice given and request made by the plaintiff, defendants did not agree, as such parties jointly applied under section 10 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, the standard rent was rightly fixed by the Rent Controller, same is final. It cannot be a subject-matter to be decided by Civil Court as fixation of standard rent lies in the domain of Rent Controller, once it has been fixed the defendants have been rightly held liable to make the payment at the rate which was fixed by the Rent Controller, Sagar, fixation of it has not been shown to be illegal or arbitrary 10 any manner. 9. The only dispute raised is about the payability of rate of rent till the accommodation was vacated on 14.5.1999 by the defendants. It is provided in the agreement (Ex. 9. The only dispute raised is about the payability of rate of rent till the accommodation was vacated on 14.5.1999 by the defendants. It is provided in the agreement (Ex. D-3) that rent was to be enhanced by mutual agreement, after lapse of 11 months period, it appears that rent was not enhanced in spite of written request made by the plaintiff, ultimately defendant No. 2 and plaintiff applied jointly to the Collector for fixation of standard rent as no agreed rent could be reached between the parties. The application was filed by defendant No. 2, Branch Office of M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. to the Rent Controller, on the basis of that an order was passed on 19.5.1993. The order that has been passed by the Rent Controller is binding; with respect to fixation of standard rent, exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred on Rent Controller and the rent fixed was final, it has not been done in arbitrary or unilateral manner, vague plea was taken in paragraph 17 of written statement that an order passed was arbitrary but said plea was not substantiated, it could not be shown how that order passed was arbitrary. 10. Shri P.R. Bhave, learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that no enquiry was done by Rent Controller, however, it was not pleaded in written statement nor he was able to point out any evidence on record to show that rent was arbitrarily fixed, parties have applied for fixation of standard rent and the order dated 19.5.1993 is binding on them, the order has not been shown to be illegal in any manner, thus, trial Court was right in decreeing rent w.e.f. 1.3.1993 and awarding the mesne profit after the tenancy was terminated at the rate of Rs. 4,226/-. 11. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. Appeal is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred.