JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of parties, the matter is finally decided at this stage. 2. Instant petition has been filed by defendant petitioner assailing order of learned trial Judge dated 27th September, 2001 [Ann.5] whereby application for provisional rent pending suit has been determined-against which petitioner preferred appeal which was also dismissed on 6th February, 2008 [Ann.6]. 3. Plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit for eviction on the ground of default under section 13(3) of Rajasthan Premises [Control of Rent and Eviction] Act, 1950. Written statement has been filed by petitioner-defendant. Pending suit, learned trial Judge after taking note of material on record, provisional rent was determined and it was ordered to be paid along with interest and the appeal preferred by petitioner was also rejected. Hence, this petition. 4. Counsel for petitioner vehemently contends that suit premises was taken on rent by plaintiff's mother Smt. Rameshwari Devi and after her death, petitioner & his elder brother Chandra Prakash either of them were accepting rent and receipt to this effect has also been placed on record before learned trial Judge for its proper appreciation, but, that has not been looked into in right earnest. The finding, which has been recorded by learned trial Judge while determining provisional rent, is wholly erroneous and same is the error committed by learned ADJ while rejecting appeal preferred by him. 5. Counsel further submits that pending dispute, provisional Rent can be deposited in the Court which will be subject to the outcome of the pending suit since the eviction is sought on the basis of default only. 6. Counsel for respondents has supported finding and submits that once notice was served on 30th January, 2006, the petitioner was under an obligation to pay rent to non-petitionerCW plaintiff who was authorised to accept rent of suit premises and in such circumstances, no error has been committed by learned court below in determining rent from the date of filing of the suit. 7. Counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that once determination has been made, atleast the same may be paid to him subject to final outcome of pending suit. 8. It has also come to the notice of this court that suit has been filed in 1986 which is pending at the stage of defendants' evidence and almost 23 years have rolled by now. 8. It has also come to the notice of this court that suit has been filed in 1986 which is pending at the stage of defendants' evidence and almost 23 years have rolled by now. Even on merits Rent Receipts Ex.6, 7, 9, 10, 12 & 14 have been placed on record and signatures of brother of non-petitioner-plaintiff over those receipts have not been disputed by him, of which reference has been made by learned trial Judge in its order also. But, it appears that it's effect has not been properly appreciated. However, determination of provisional rent will always be subject to final outcome of suit which has been filed Under section 13 (3) of the Act. 9. This court considers appropriate in the facts of instant case that rent determined by learned trial Judge under order impugned may be deposited in court and plaintiff will be entitled for the same, if succeeded in the pending suit. 10. Consequently, writ petition stands disposed of with the direction that rent which has been determined by learned trial Judge shall be deposited by petitioner within two months in the court and the trial Judge will deposit the same in FDR and will be paid/released to the person entitled on the final outcome of pending suit. But, at the same time, since suit is pending for last 23 yrs., this court considers appropriate to direct the learned trial Judge to expedite and decide the suit finally within six months. However, what has been observed (supra) may not cause any prejudice to the parties and the trial Judge may decide the matter without being influenced by the observations made in accordance with law. Copy of this order may be sent to learned trial Judge for necessary compliance.Appeal Disposed of. *******