The determination of provisional rent under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 is subject to final adjustment, and if the rent is found to be determined excessively, the court has jurisdiction to order the return of the excess amount paid by the defendant petitioner.

1. - This revision has been directed against the order dated 9.4.1988, passed by A.D.J. No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur, confirming the order dated 30.1.1986, passed by Munsif Magistrate, Jaipur City (West), by which both the lower Courts determined the rent under Section 13 (3) and Section 7 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, (for short the 'Act') at the rate of Rs. 150/- P.M.

2. Mr. Mathur, counsel for the petitioner argued that both the lower courts committed serious illegality in determining the provisional rent without deciding the basic rent. He further argued that the lower courts also committed serious illegality in not considering the affidavits filed by the petitioner. He thirdly argued that the Courts committed serious illegality in determining the same rent which was alleged by the plaintiff. He also argued that the Court should not have considered the rents of the neighbouring shops and also the house tax receipt of the year 1981. Under these circumstances, he prayed that the orders passed by lower courts deserve to be set aside.On the other hand, Mr. Khan argued that the lower courts while determining provisional rent, have not committed any illegality or irregularity and as such the revision is not maintainable. He further argued that the determination of the rent is only provisional, the Court will decide the final rent at the time of deciding the suit and as such no revision is maintainable. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on 1989 (1) R.L.R. 390, wherein this Court held that determination of provisional rent is subject to final adjustment in terms of S. 7. Thus there is no prejudice to either party in the ultimate anylysis as a consequence of an order of fixation of the provisional rent.

3. He also argued that question of determining basic rent will arise only when the Court will decide the standard rent finally. At this stage, the Court has to only determine the provisional rent under Section 7 read with Section 13 (3) of the Act. He also argued that in case at the final decision of the suit, the Courts come to the conclusion that the rent was deterwined excessively, the Court will have jurisdiction to pass order for the return of the amount, which has been paid excessively by the defendant petitioner and as such there is no question of any prejudice to the petitioner.

4. After considering arguments of both the parties, I am of the view that at this stage, there is no necessity of determining the basic rent of the premises. Both the lower courts have exercised their jurisdiction and under such circumstances, this Court should not interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower courts and consequently, the revision is dismissed. Any how, it is observed that at the time of final decision of the case, the Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner has paid rent excessively, the Court will pass order for the refund of excess amount with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.

5. Mr. Mathur prays time for depositing the arrears of rent and also of the monthly rent which accrued during the pendency of the suit.

6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, I grant him time to deposit all these arrears upto 5th July, 1992.Revision dismissed.

*******