S.K. Mal Lodha, J. - (1.)This revision under Sec. 115 C.P.C. has been filed against the appellate order dated Sept. 20, 1984 passed by the Additional District Judge, Udaipur, by which he affirmed the order dated March 20, 1984 of the Civil Judge, Udaipur and also awarded a sum of Rs. 1000.00 as compensatory costs under Sec. 35-A C.P.C.
(2.)The plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant-petitioner interalia on the ground of default. The defendant contested the suit. One of the pleas taken by the defendant was that the rent agreed upon was excessive and, therefore, determination of standard rent should be made under Sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act No. 17 of 1950) (Hereinafter referred as the 'Act'). The learned Civil Judge by his order dated March 20, 1984 determined by provisional amount of rent payable by the tenant-defendant to the plaintiff-landlord at the rate of 350.00 per month. The appeal was taken by the defendant that was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Udaipur and he also ordered for payment of the compensatory costs amounting to Rs. 1000.00. The defendant-petitioner has filed this revision against the appellate order on two grounds :
(1) That the provisional rent determined by the Civil Judge and which has been affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Udaipur is in disregard to the provisions contained in Sec. 13 (3) read with Sec. 7 (4) of the Act, and

(2) That compensatory costs amounting to Rs. 1000.00 could not have been ordered to be paid by the tenant-defendant to the plaintiff landlord under Sec. 35-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, for, in appeal no such order can be passed and this direction is wholly without jurisdiction.

(3.)Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in regard to the fixation of the provisional rent @ Rs. 350.00 per month, I am of the opinion that no jurisdictional error has been committed by the learned Additional District Judge, Udaipur when he confirmed the order of provisional rent P. Rs. 350.00 per month. So far as the award of compensatory costs by the Additional District Judge is concerned. Mr. N.P. Gupta. learned counsel for the non-petitioner has no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so far as this aspect of the case is concerned. No compensatory costs could be awarded in the appeal filed by the tenant-defendant. The direction of the award of compensatory costs made by the learned Additional District Judge is without jurisdiction and it has to be quashed.