1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3252/2005. Laxman Singh Kothari. VERSUS Addl.District Judge, Malpura and Others. 10.04.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.Imran Khan, for the petitioner. Mr.Lokesh Sharma ] Mr.Laxmikant Sharma ] for the respondents. ***** Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the learned trial court while allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1-landlord against the order dated 25.07.2002 by which the application submitted by the landlord-respondent No.1 under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 was dismissed. In the instant case, the suit admittedly is based upon the grounds mentioned in Section 13(1)(a) of the Act of 1950 which relates to the default in payment of rent. Under Section 13(3) of the said Act, the court shall on the first date of hearing or any other day that may be fixed in that behalf but not more than three 2 months after the filing of the written statement and before the framing of the issues after hearing the parties, determine the amount of rent to be deposited in court and paid to the landlord by the tenant where the suit is based upon the ground of default in payment of rent. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the defendant-tenant denied the ownership of the landlord-plaintiff and that the plaintiff is not the landlord is immaterial so far as the aforesaid application under Section 13(3) of the Act is concerned. In such a case, the learned trial court would frame the issue, as has been done in this case and would proceed to decide the aforesaid issue regarding the existence of the tenancy and in case the said issue is decided against the plaintiff-landlord, the suit would fail. Nonetheless, the tenant cannot at this stage be allowed to contend that he is not required to deposit the rent as determined under Section 13(3) of the Act of 1950 or that no application under Section 13(3) of the Act of 1950 was maintainable. 3 In the facts and circumstances, having considered the judgment of the learned lower appellate court, I find no good ground to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. The interim order passed by this court is vacated. Consequently, the writ petition and the stay application stand dismissed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 11.05.2009 along with a copy of this order. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.