JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellants-tenants. 2. In the second round of litigation against the provisional determination of rent by the learned Court below, the appellants-tenant are before this Court in the present appeal against the order dated 3.1.2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar in Eviction Suit No. 34/2002 (119/2002) (Ramesh Kumar v. Jarnail Singh) . 3. The learned Court below has determined the provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950') at Rs. 3,000/- per month w.e.f. 1.4.1995 as against Rs. 250/- per month claimed by the defendants-tenants. 4. In the earlier found of litigation, a Co-ordinate Dench of this Court while allowing the appeal of the plaintiff-landlord viz. 3,000/- per month w.e.f. 1.4.1995 as against Rs. 250/- per month claimed by the defendants-tenants. 4. In the earlier found of litigation, a Co-ordinate Dench of this Court while allowing the appeal of the plaintiff-landlord viz. S.B.C.M.A. No. 1101/2007 -Ramesh Kumar v. Jarnail Singh had held as under: nksuksa i{kksa ds rdksZa ij xgjkbZ ls fopkj fd;kA izfroknh izR;FkhZ us fdjk;kukek o fdjk;k vnk;xh jlhn ij vius vaxq"B fu'kku gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gS] mDr izys[k mldh tkudkjh ls dkQh iqjkus Hkh gSA ;ksX; v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us bu izys[kksa dks iwjs LVkEi ij ugha gksus ls lk{; ls xzkgkz ;ksX; ugha ekus tk ldrs ds vk/kkj ij utj vankt fd;s gSA esjs fouez er esa ;ksX; v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk ;g fu"d"kZ lgh ugha gSA izys[kksa dh xzkgkzrk lk{; esa izLrqr djus oDr gh ns[kh tkus ;ksX; jgrh gSA bl fu"d"kZ dks gjthr cuke es?kk o vU; ( vkj0,y0vkj0 2000 ( 2 ) ist 193 ) ,oa ukjk;.k o vU; cuke enu o vU; ( vkj0,y0vkj0 2002 ( 2 ) ist 84 ) esa bl U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fd;s fu.kZ;ksa esa izfrikfnr fd;s x;s fl)kUrksa ls Hkh leFkZu feyrk gSA fdjk;k fu/kkZj.k djrs oDr oknh o izfroknh i{k ds vfHkopuksa] izys[kksa ,oa muds }kjk izLrqr fd;s x;s 'kiFk i=ksa ds vk/kkj ij fu"d"kZ fudkys tkus dk fo"k; jgrk gSA ml n`f"V ls oknh i{k dFkuksa dk leFkZu bu izys[kksa ls gksrk gS] ftuds vuqlkj fdjk;k :0 3]000@& izfrekg dh nj ls vfUre ckj vnk;xh gksuk ik;k tkrk gSA izfroknh izR;FkhZ us blds foijhr Lo;a ds dFku ds vykok dksbZ vU; lk{; lkexzh izLrqr ugha dh gSA vr% ;ksX; v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk vkns'k =qfViq.kZ gksus ls dk;e j[kus ;ksX; ugha gSA bl izdze ij fdjk;k vfUre :i ls fu/kkZj.k gksrk gS] tks nkos ds vfUre fu.kZ; ds lkFk tqM+k jgrk gS ftlesa fdjk;snkj ds fgrksa dh lqj{kk j[kh gqbZ gSA mDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij ;ksX; v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vyksP; vkns'k vikLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; jgrk gS ,oe~ ifjlj dk fdjk;k :0 3]000@& izfrekg ekurs gqos izdj.k iqu% fdjk;k fu/kkZj.k djus gsrq ;ksX; v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks Hkstk tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA QyLo:i oknxzLr ifjlj nqdku dk fdjk;k :0 3]000@& izfrekg ls fu;ekuqlkj fdjk;k fu/kkZj.k djus gsrq izdj.k izfrizsf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; nksuksa i{kksa dks lquokbZ dk leqfpr volj nsrs gqos mDr funsZ'kksa ds lkFk fdjk;k fu/kkZj.k djsA blh fu"d"kZ ds lkFk vihy vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk vkns'k vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gqos [kpkZ i{kdkjku viuk viuk ogu djsaxsA 5. The defendants-tenant took the matter further the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 7192 of 2008-Jarnail Singh v. Ramesh Kumar ), which, however, came to be disposed of by the Apex Court vide the judgment dated 8.12.2008 in the following manner: "5. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the tenants in appeal before us. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the materials on record. In our view, interference in the exercise of our power under Article 136 of the Constitution is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. On the question viz. Whether the rate of rent would be at the rate of Rs. 250 per month or Rs. 3000 per month and since the High Court has directed an order of remanding the case back to the trial Court to determine the rate of rent, we are of the view that the High Court was justified in directing the tenant/appellant to pay rent of the shop room at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month till the final determination is made by the trial Court. 6. However, we make it clear that the directions made by the High Court to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month is purely provisional and such determination by the High Court shall not influence the trial Court from coming to a conclusion that rate of rent is Rs. 3,000/- per month. It will be open to the trial Court to determine the rate of rent on consideration of the evidence on record adduced by the parties and thereafter, direct the tenant to deposit the same in terms of such determination. 7. With these observations, this appeal is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs." 6. Upon such remand by the High Court, the learned trial Court has again passed the impugned order on 3.1.2012 redetermining the provisional rent on the basis of statements of the parlies recorded by it under Order 10 Rule 1 C.P.C. on 9.3.2004. The learned Court below has come to the conclusion that in the absence of any contradictory documentary evidence produced by the defendants-tenants, relying on the "Kabuliyat Iqrarnama" dated 1.4.1995 and receipt of Rs. 18,000/- for the advance rent of six months @ Rs. The learned Court below has come to the conclusion that in the absence of any contradictory documentary evidence produced by the defendants-tenants, relying on the "Kabuliyat Iqrarnama" dated 1.4.1995 and receipt of Rs. 18,000/- for the advance rent of six months @ Rs. 3,000/- per month, for two premises in question under the tenancy of defendants, a shop measuring 10' x 45' and another premise adjacent to the shop, measuring 10' x 33' respectively, the rent of Rs. 3,000/- was liable to be determined as payable by the defendants-tenants and the arrears of rent with 6% interest, which comes to Rs. 4,76,312/-. 7. Being aggrieved of the same, the defendants-tenants have approached this Court again by way of present appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the defendants-tenants, Mr. C.S. Kotwani, submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and since the defendants had clearly denied having executed "Kabuliyat Iqrarnama" dated 1.4.1995 and receipt dated 1.4.1995, which are written on a plain paper and only bearing thumb impression of the defendant Jarnail Singh and as such they are not admissible in the evidence and a criminal case is also pending against the plaintiff-land for threatening the defendants and getting such documents executed. He, therefore, submitted that determination of the rent @ Rs. 3,000/- per month is illegal and same is required to be set aside in the present appeal. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, the Court is of the opinion that the present misc. appeal of the defendants-tenants is without any merit and deserves dismissal summarily. The provisional rent of Rs. 3,000/- per month was not only upheld by this Court in the decision dated 9.7.2007 on the basis of same documents which are now assailed by the defendants and on page 4 of the judgment dated 9.7.2007, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has rejected the contention of the tenant that rent was Rs. The provisional rent of Rs. 3,000/- per month was not only upheld by this Court in the decision dated 9.7.2007 on the basis of same documents which are now assailed by the defendants and on page 4 of the judgment dated 9.7.2007, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has rejected the contention of the tenant that rent was Rs. 250/- per month in the following manner: " -------fdjk;k :0 250@& izfrekg gksus dk dksbZ izek.k] vkl&ikl dh nqdkunkjksa ds 'kiFk i= oxSjg is'k ugha fd;s gS] mlds Lo;a ds }kjk fdjk;sukesa o vnk fd;s gqos fdjk;s dh jlhn esa fdjk;k :0 3]000@& izfrekg ekuk gS] mUgsa bl izdze ij vLohdkj dj tks fdjk;k fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS] og dkj.k j[kus ;ksX; ugha jgrkA " While allowing the plaintiffs appeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the quoted portion above in para 5 also held that the High Court was justified in directing the defendants-tenants to pay rent of shop room @ Rs. 3,000/- per month till final determination is made by the Tribunal and thus remand order passed by the High Court was upheld. Upon the remand, the trial Court has again only provisionally determined the rent as Rs. 3,000/- in the absence of any contradictory documentary evidence led by the parties. The learned Court below has relied upon the oral evidence in the form of statements recorded of both the parties under Order 10 Rule 1 C.P.C. on 9.3.2004. 10. A perusal of the said statements dated 9.3.2004 clearly reveal that in the statement of plaintiff-Ramesh Kumar, he has clearly stated that the tenant-defendant was paying rent @ Rs. 1,500/- per month up to 1995 but when the additional premises measuring 10' x 33' was given w.e.f. 1.4.1995, the rent was increased to Rs. 3,000/- and in connection with that only these two documents, namely, "Kabuliyat Iqrarnama" and receipt dated 1.4.1995 were executed. Against that a bald denial in the statement of the defendant that he did not execute these two documents while admitting that the shop was in his possession on recent for last 22 years. According to him, the rent of the same was in the year 1995 in the nearby area was Rs. 3,000/- per month was not believed and relied by the learned trial Court. 11. According to him, the rent of the same was in the year 1995 in the nearby area was Rs. 3,000/- per month was not believed and relied by the learned trial Court. 11. In the circumstances of the cases, the findings of the learned trial Court about determination of provisional rent upon remand by the High Court in the earlier round of litigation cannot be faulted. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellants-tenant on an authoritative pronouncement in the case of Naresh Sachdeva v. Prithvipal Singh & Ors. reported in 1999 DNJ (Raj.) 538 , in which determination of provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the Act of 1950 will be done on the basis of the material available on record which will include; pleadings, documents and affidavits of the parties, is hardly of any assistance to the defendants in the present case. While the principles of law set out in the said judgment admit of no dispute or quarrel but at the same time, the appreciation of the evidence in the present case by the learned Court below is without any fault and, same, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. 12. In view of above discussion, this Court finds no force in the present mist. appeal of the defendants-tenants and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the respondents and learned Court below forthwith.Appeal Dismissed. *******