JUDGMENT 1. - This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 29.09.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Karauli (for short 'the trial Court'), whereby the application filed by the petitioner-decree holder for recovery of the rent for a sum of Rs. 2,41,034/- for the premises in which articles which were seized by the Nazeer while handing over vacant possession of the disputed premises in execution of the decree in favour of the plaintiff petitioner were given to the petitioner on 'Supardginama' and kept for safe custody has been rejected. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and carefully gone through the order impugned passed by the trial Court. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 53 and 57 CPC, the petitioner through its power of attorney holder Dhanpatrai Sharma wanted to take vacant possession of the premises but there were certain articles lying therein and the judgment debtor declined to remove and take possession thereof and, therefore, the Nazeer of Court while executing the decree of eviction handed over the material/articles lying therein on 'Supardgi' to the power of attorney holder of petitioner. Thus, under such circumstances, he had taken over the material lying in the premises and kept in a different premises for a long period and, therefore, is entitled for the rent of the premises in which such material/articles were kept for proper custody. 4. Learned counsel has fairly conceded that there being no such provision under either Transfer of Property Act or the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act to entitling the petitioner-decree holder for the rent of such premises and, therefore, the petitioner-decree holder moved an application before the trial Court under Section 151 CPC, but the trial Court by an elaborate order, dismissed the application holding therein that it was the power of attorney of the plaintiff-decree holder (petitioner herein) at his own will taken the articles on 'Supardagi' from the Court's Nazeer in execution of the eviction decree and at the time of taking property on 'Supardagi', there was no agreement for claiming any rent for the period for which the material/articles remained in 'Supardagi' of the plaintiff-decree holder. 5. 5. In my view, the trial Court was justified in dismissing the application. Undisputedly, there is no agreement between the parties for claiming or paying the rent for the premises in which the material/articles were kept while in 'Supardagi' of the petitioner-decree holder. 6. In the circumstances, therefore, it cannot be said that the order impugned suffers from any error or illegality or perversity. There is no provision of law authorising the person in Supardagi to claim rent to keep the material/articles taken on 'Supardagi' at his own sweat will. From the order impugned, it is clear that the petitioner wanted to take over vacant possession of the premises in execution of decree of eviction and for that purpose he volunteered to take care of material/articles lying in the premises and as such there had not been any agreement between the parties for entitling or paying of rent for that purpose. In the circumstances, therefore, it cannot be said that the decree holder is entitled for any rent of the premises in which such articles were kept at his own will.The revision petition is, therefore, devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed.Revision petition dismissed. *******