ISRANI, J. - (1.) :- This Civil Revision under S.115, C.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 31/10/1986, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge No. 2, Bharatpur, in Civil Appeal No. 61/1986, Subrati v. Bhagwati Prasad, confirming the order dated 8/01/1985, passed by learned Munsif, Bharatpur, in Suit No.169/1978, Bhagwati Prasad v. Subrati, by which the provisional rent was determined under S.13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act.)
(2.) During the course of hearing the learned single Judge came across conflicting single Bench decisions of the this Court on the point and, therefore, referred the following point for determination by a larger Bench.:- "Whether the provisions of S.13(3) of the Act, 1950, are mandatory in the sense that they exclude the power of the Court to determine the provisional rent thereunder after the expiry of the period of three months from the filing of the written statement and the framing of the issues in the suit. "
(3.) It will suffice to state for the purposes of this reference that plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit on 5/07/1978, against the defendant petitioner in the Court of Munsiff, Bharatpur, for declaration of his title over the suit property and recovery of rent and ejectment on the basis of defaults. The defendant-petitioner contested the suit and claimed to be owner of the suit property and denied to be either tenant or a defaulter. Issues were framed by the trial Court on 11/07/1980. The trial Court after period of 5 1/2 years of framing of the issues determined on 8/01/1985, the provisional rent under sub-sec. (3) of S.13 of the Act of 1950, despite objections raised by the petitioner. The defendant-petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order passed by the trial Court but the same was rejected by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Bharatpur, (Court No. 2) vide its order dated 31/10/1986. 3A. It is contended by Shri B.L. Mandhana, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant that a bare reading of sub-sec. (3) of S.13, clearly shows that when a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in Cl. (a) of sub-sec. (1) with or without any of the other grounds referred to in that sub-section is filed the Court shall, on the first date of hearing or any other date as the Court may fix in this behalf, which shall not be more than three months after filing of the written statement and shall be before the framing of the issues, may provisionally determine the amount of rent to be deposited in Court or paid to the landlord by the tenant. It is pointed out that in this case in spite of objections raised by the petitioner-defendant, the rent was determined after long delay of 51/2 years after the framing of the issues. It is contended that the trial Court could provisionally determine the rent before expiry of three months after the filing of written statement and in any case before the framing of the issue but in no case, the Court can determine the amount of provisional rent after the issues have been framed. It is further contended that the time provided in sub-sec. (3) is mandatory and the Court had no power to extend the same and determine the amount of provisional-rent even after expiry of 51/2 years after the issues were framed in the suit. It is, therefore, pointed out that such determination of provisional rent is no determination of provisional rent in eye of law and should be ignored as of no consequence. ;