1. - This civil revision has been filed by the petitioner- dafendant against the judgment dated 24.7.2001 passed by the learned Addl. District e No. 2, Bhilwara in Civil Appeal No. 11/2001 (23/2001) by which he allowed the tppeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the order dated 14.3.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No. 2, Bhilwara by which the learned Addl. Civil Judge determined the provisional rent at the rate of र 100/- p.m., but the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2 enhanced the provisional rent from र 100/- p.m. to र 2500/- per month.

2. It arises in the following circumstances :

The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit in the Trial Court under Section 6(1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Control Act") for fixation of standard rent and in that suit, it was also prayed that provisional rent may also be fixed to the tune of र 2,000/- or र 2,500/- per month.

A reply to that suit was filed by the petitioner defendant. The learned Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) No. 2. Bhilwara through his order dated 14.3.2001 determined the provisional rent at the rate of र 100/- per month of the rented premises holding inter alia :

(1) That no doubt in the previous suit for eviction from the suit premises between the parties, the rent was fixed by the Court at the rate of र 100/- per month through judgment and decree dated 30.1.1992 and appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 30.1.1992 was also dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1 Bhilwara through judgment dated 15.9.1999, but that determination of rent at the rate of र 100/- - p.m. would not operate as res judicata.

(2) That since the agreed rent since 1973 was र 100/- per month, therefore, for determination of provisional rent in the suit for fixation of standard rent, the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No. 2, Bhilwara came to the conclusion that this rent would be better and, therefore, under Section 7(1) of the Rent Control Act, he determined the provisional rent at the rate of र 10/- per month in a suit for standard rent filed under Section 6 of the Rent Control Act. Aggrieved from the said order dated 14.3.2001 passed by the teamed Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No. 2, Bhilwara, the respondent-plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Bhilwara and later on it was transferred to the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Bhilwara and the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Bhilwara through his impugned judgment dated 24.7.2001 accepted the appeal of the respondent-plaintiff and enhanced the provisional rent from र 100/- to र 2,500/- per month holding inter alia that since the rented premises consist of five rooms, latrine, bath rooms etc., therefore, looking to the prevalent rate of rent, he came to the conclusion that at present, rented premises should have been let out @ र 4000/- per month, but since rented premises were taken on rent since 1973 and applying the principle of depreciation in the value of the rented premises, he determined the provisional rent at the rate of र 2,500/- and thus, he increased the provisional rent from र 100/- to र 2,500/- per month.
Aggrieved from the said judgment dated 24.7.2001 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Bhilwara, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant.

3. In this revision petition, the main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendant is that since in the previous suit for rent and eviction between the parties which was decided on 30.1.1992, the rent was determined at the rate of र 100/- per month and that rent was also maintained by the Appellate Court through judgment dated 15.9.1999 and, therefore, that rent had become final and thus, while determining the provisional rent under Section 7(1) of the Rent Control Act, that rent should have been accepted and in view of this, the impugned judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2 is bad in law and