Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. It appears from the facts of the case that there are rival claims about the property in dispute of the plaintiff and defendant so far as ownership is concerned.

3. The plaintiff filed suit for eviction on various grounds including ground of default. The trial Court refused to determine the rent vide order dated 05.09.1995 but the appellate Court in appeal set aside the order of trial Court and determined the rent of the suit premises at the rate of Rs. 150/-per month.

4. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, since there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant, therefore, the trial Court should not have determined the rent under Section 13(3) of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the “Act”). Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the Judgment of this Court reported in 1991 (1) WLC (Raj.) page 568 wherein this Court on finding that there is a serious dispute of the property in question, the trial Court should not have determined the rent in the circumstances of that case.

5. It is clear from the facts of the case that the first