JUDGMENT Prakash Gupta, J. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 30.4.2013 passed by Addl. District Judge No.1, Ajmer in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 63/2009, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') has been allowed and the judgment dated 15.5.2009 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 6, Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 145/2000 allowing the application of the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') and striking off the defence of the defendants has been quashed and set-aside. 2. Facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants before the trial court for eviction and recovery of rent. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 13 (5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950') stating that the defendants had not deposited the due rent within the given time with the trial court, as such their defence be struck off. The trial court vide its order dated 17.8.2001 determined the rent of the suit property @ Rs. 20/- per month which was found due for 133 months. Thus, the total amount found due was Rs. (133 X 20) = 2660.00 and after adding the interest thereon, a sum of Rs. 3537.80/- was found due on the defendants towards rent. It was directed by the trial court to the defendants to pay the aforesaid due amount. However, a note was put below the order dated 17.8.2001 that the rent already deposited by the defendants in the court would be set off and adjourned the mater for framing the issues. Against the order dated 17.8.2001 passed by the trial court, the defendants filed an appeal before the appellate court. The Appellate Court i.e. District Judge, Ajmer vide its judgment dated 24.9.2002 found that the amount of rent so determined by the trial court was provisional, as such no illegality could be said to have occurred in the order passed by the trial court. Whether the interest was payable thereon or not and if payable, to what extent it was payable, could be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit. Accordingly the appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants vide its judgment dated 24.9.2002 aforesaid. 3. Whether the interest was payable thereon or not and if payable, to what extent it was payable, could be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit. Accordingly the appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants vide its judgment dated 24.9.2002 aforesaid. 3. Thereafter the defendants on their own deposited only Rs. 715/- only and did not deposit the balance amount of Rs. 2822.80/-. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 13 (5) of the Act of 1950 for striking off the defence of the defendants. The defendants filed reply thereto stating that they had already deposited the rent of 100 months. Therefore, after deducting the amount of 100 months @ Rs. 20/- per month i.e. Rs. 2000 as also the interest accrued thereon (Rs. 822.80/-), the difference amount of Rs. 715/- (for 33 months) was deposited by them. 4. The trial court having considered the matter in detail vide its order dated 15.5.2009 allowed the plaintiff's application and struck off the defence of the defendants. Against the said order passed by the trial court, the defendants filed an appeal before Addl. District Judge No.1, Ajmer. The learned Addl. District Jude No.1 having found that the defendants were continuously paying the rent since 1993, as such it could not be presumed that the defendants committed default in payment of rent pursuant to the order dated 17.8.2001 passed by the trial court, allowed the defendants' appeal vide its judgment dated 30.4.2013 and setaside the order dated 15.5.2009 passed by the trial court. 5. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the learned appellate court has not considered the fact that the defendants did not pay the rent in accordance with law. The findings given by the appellate court are based on assumption and presumption. 7. Learned counsel for the defendants submitted that on 28.7.1993 the suit was filed by the plaintiff, whereas till March, 1993, the defendants had already deposited the rent with the trial court under Section 19A of the Act of 1950. On 17.8.2001, the trial court determined the provisional rent and directed to set off / adjust the rent already deposited by the defendants. On 17.8.2001, the trial court determined the provisional rent and directed to set off / adjust the rent already deposited by the defendants. Thus, the rent already deposited was required to be set-off / adjusted and the remaining rent was to be deposited, which the defendants did. 8. It was also argued that the rent @ Rs. 20/- per month for a period of 100 months had already been deposited by the defendants before the date of determination of provisional rent. Thereafter the question of paying any interest on that amount did not arise. The defendants thereafter rightly deposited sum of Rs. 715/- only and there was no question of non compliance of the order dated 17.8.2001. In this view of the matter, the learned Trial Court wrongly held that any default in payment of rent determined under Section 13(3) of the Act of 1950 had been made by the defendants. The learned appellate court was right in accepting the appeal of the defendants. Hence, the judgment passed by the appellate court is just and reasonable and no interference therewith is required by this Court. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 10. Section 13 (5) of the Act of 1950 provides that "if a tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in subsection (4) on the date or within the time specified therein, the court shall order the defence against eviction to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit" 11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it amply clear that where the tenant fails to pay the amount within the time specified, the court shall pass the order of striking off the defence. 12. Under Section 13(3) of the Act of 1950 the provisional rent shall be calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid or was payable for the period for which the tenant may have made default alongwith the interest on such amount from the date when the same was payable. 13. In the instant case, the defendants failed to deposit the provisional rent as determined by the trial court and on their own deposited Rs. 715/- only. Thus, the defendants committed default in payment of rent, as determined by the trial court. 14. 13. In the instant case, the defendants failed to deposit the provisional rent as determined by the trial court and on their own deposited Rs. 715/- only. Thus, the defendants committed default in payment of rent, as determined by the trial court. 14. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the defendants regarding non payment of interest amount is concerned, the same is not in accordance with true interpretation of Section 13 (3) of the Act of 1950. The amount determined by the Trial Court under Section 13(3) of the Act of 1950 is always provisional in nature and the same is subject to adjustment made in the final judgment. No doubt the defendants were entitled to set off the amount already deposited by them in the Trial Court towards rent however they had no right to set off the amount of interest calculated by the Trial Court in the order dated 17.8.2001. 15. The trial court has rightly passed the order striking off the defence of the defendants, but the appellate court has failed to consider this aspect of the matter. 16. For this reason, the revision petition filed by the plaintiffs is allowed; the judgment dated 30.4.2013 passed by Addl. District Judge No.1, Ajmer in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 63/2009 is set-aside and accordingly the judgment dated 15.5.2009 passed by the Trial Court striking out the defence of the defendants is restored.