IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1515/2002 Abdul Majeed Vs. Rajendra Kumar Awasthi& Ors. 30.5.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri N.A. Naqvi, for the appellant. This misc. appeal has been listed on the defect side as the respondent has not been served. Though notices were ordered to be issued as early as on 6.1.2003. The impugned order is of determination of rent dated 30.7.2002. There was no order of stay of the operation of the impugned order by this court. In view of the above the effect of the order has already taken place and the appellant was required to deposit the rent as determined under the impugned order @ 475/- p.m. This appeal is directed against the impugned order by which the provisional rent under Section 6 of the Act of 1950 and determination of the arrears under Section 13 (3) of the said Act was done by the learned trial court. In the meanwhile, while this appeal has remained pending the suit has proceeded and the evidence of the appellant is going on. I am of the view that the determination of provisional rent under Section 6 is subject to determination of the rent at the trial while deciding the suit on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. The impugned order dated 30.7.2002 would be subject to the final out come in the suit. In that view of the matter at this stage when the trial is about to conclude I find no good ground to keep this appeal pending as the appellant has failed to get the respondent served in six years and consequently direct that the order dated 30.7.2002 determining the provisional rent would be subject to the final out come of the suit at the conclusion of the trial. Needless to say that in case the amount of rent determined at the conclusion of the trial is reduced by the learned trial court and it is found that the defendant appellant has paid any rent in excess of the rent so determined at the conclusion of the trial the amount paid in excess would be liable to be adjusted by giving the defendant credit for the same. The other question which has been raised is in relation to the title of the landlord and his right to receive rent, which again is to be decided by the court during the trial in relation to the relevant issue which may have been framed and cannot be determined at this stage without recording evidence of the parties. In view of the above, this misc. appeal as well as the stay application are disposed of with the directions contained hereinabove. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS