2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a civil suit No. 46/91 before the aforesaid Court with the allegations that the appellant took the disputed shop on rent at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month, that the appellant did not pay rent from 1-4-1988 to 31-5-1991 and thus committed default in payment of rent; that the shop was let out for the purposes of selling cycle parts but the defendant-appellant without the permission of the plaintiff-respondent started the work of repairing of cycles, that the behaviour of the appellant is very rude and that the appellant has created nuisance. In support of his case that the rent was agreed at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month, the plaintiff-respondent submitted affidavits of himself and also of Banwari Lal and Prem Kumar. The defendant-appellant in his written statement denied the allegations of the plaint and alleged that the disputed shop was taken on rent in the year 1980 in the presence of Shri Saheb Singh at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month including the electric charges; that after two years rent was increased and later on in the year 1988 rent was again increased at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month; that the defendant appellant has been paying rent to the plaintiff-respondent regularly; that the appellant has already deposited rent upto August, 1990 in the Court of Munsiff; Bharatpur under Section 19 (a) of the aforesaid Act. The appellant also submitted affidavits of Saheb Singh, Babu and Umesh Chandra in support of his case that the rent of the disputed shop was only Rs. 75/- per month and not Rs. 300/- per month as alleged by the plaintiff respondent.

3. On 11-3-1992 the plaintiff submitted his own affidavit mentioning therein that he does not know any person of the name of Saheb Singh and further that the disputed shop was not leased out in the presence of Saheb Singh.

4. The trial Court vide its order dated 12-3-1992 after referring the affidavits and pleadings of the parties determined the arrears of rent under Sec. 13 (3) of the aforesaid Act at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month from 1-4-1988 to 31-5-1990 on the ground that the defendant-appellant did not produce receipt of rent and further that the disputed shop is situated in the city of Bharatpur and the plaintiff claims that the rate of rent was agreed at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. Against this order of the Addl. District Judge No.l Bharatpur the defendant-appellant has filed the present appeal. I heard counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Shri P.K. Sharma argued that the learned Judge has determined the arrears of rent only on the grounds that the appellant did not produce any receipt of rent and further that the plaintiff claimed rent of the disputed shop at the rale of Rs. 300/- per month. He argued that when the plaintiff did not give any receipt of rent to the defendant-appellant, there was no question of production of any rent receipt by the appellant. He further argued that the lower Court should have drawn adverse inference against the plaintiff from not producing the counterfoil of the alleged rent receipt. He further argued that he sent money order to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month and also deposited rent in the lower Court under Sec. 19(a) of the aforesaid Act at the rale of Rs. 75/- per month. He argued that this was sufficient, material for the lower Court to determine the rent at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month but instead of considering those documents the lower court determined the arrears of rent in arbitrary way simply because plaintiff claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month and that the defendant did