IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6109 of 2004. M/s. Ganesh Lal Gendi Lal, registered Partnership Firm, Old Dhan Mandi, Kota VERSUS Smt. Kasturi Bai wife of Late Shir Shambhu Dayal Goswami and Others. Date Of Order ::: 11/03/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain J. Mr. Pradeep Mathur, Counsel for the petitioner Mr. R.P. Vijay, Counsel for the respondents. By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties. The landlord-respondent filed a suit under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act in the trial Court for determination of standard rent of the disputed shop with Store against the defendant/petitioner. An application under Section 7 of the Act was also filed, along with the suit on 01.12.2000 for provisional determination of standard rent. Both the parties filed their affidavits in respect of present market rate of monthly rent of the disputed shop, along with the documentary evidence. The trial Court considered the evidence of both the parties and vide its order dated 17.04.2004 determined provisional monthly standard rent of the disputed shop at the rate of Rs.1600/- with effect from 01.12.2000 and directed the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.64,000/- for the period from 01.12.2000 to March, 2004 within a period of 15-days in the Bank account of the plaintiff, after adjusting any previous amount, if already paid to the plaintiff. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendant preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide its impugned order dated 04.06.2004. Hence, the defendant has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the above referred both the orders passed by the trial Court as well as Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned trial Court has committed an illegality in enhancing the amount of monthly rent on provisional basis under Section 7 of the Act from Rs.120/- to Rs.1600/-, which is on higher side and the said amount is liable to be reduced by this Court. His second submission is that the learned trial Court further committed an illegality in directing the defendant to pay the provisional monthly rent from the date of application i.e. 01.12.2000, whereas the said order should have been made applicable from the date of order i.e. 17.04.2004. He, therefore, contended that both the orders passed by the Courts below be set aside and the writ petition be allowed. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment passed by both the Courts below and contended that the present writ petition is not maintainable, as it is directed against the interlocutory order passed by the learned trial Court under Section 7 of the Act, which has been affirmed by the Appellate court. He further contended that sufficient evidence was placed on record before the learned trial Court by the plaintiff and on that basis the learned trial Court has determined the provisional standard rent under Section 7 of the Act. He further contended that the order passed by the learned trial Court is absolutely justified and no interference is called for by this Court in the present writ petition. He further contended that there is concurrent finding by both the Courts below, which should not be interfered with by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as this Court should not examine the impugned orders as an Appellate Court. He also contended that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in directing the defendant to make the payment of standard provisional rent from the date of his application and the said order is fully justified in the eye of law. He, therefore, contended that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for determination of the standard rent under Section 6 of the Act in the trial Court on 01.12.2000 contending therein that the disputed shop measuring 8x10 with Store measuring 8x8 was let- out about 30-years back. The monthly rent of the rented premises is Rs.120/- which should be increased to Rs.2000/- per month. The plaintiff also filed an application under Section 7 of the Act for provisional determination of standard rent. The suit as well as the application, both, were contested by the defendant. Both the parties filed their affidavits, including the documentary evidence. The trial Court considered the evidence of defendant as well as plaintiff also. The trial Court has observed that from the receipt dated 21.11.1995 given by Dinesh Kumar, it is clear that the shop in the same area was let-out in the year, 1995 at the rate of Rs.1880/- per month. Similarly, in the same market i.e. Agrasen Market/Kanchan Market another tenant Rajendra Kumar Jain is paying Rs.1600/- per month, as rent since 1998. The trial court after considering the evidence on record determined the provisional standard rent of the disputed shop at the rate of Rs.1600/- and directed the defendant to make the payment from the date of application i.e. 01.12.2000. The said order has been upheld by the Appellate Court also. There is a concurrent finding in respect of provisional standard rent by both the Courts below, which cannot be interfered with by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as this Court cannot act an Appellate Court against the said orders. I do not find any illegality on the face of the impugned orders so as to interfere with them. It is also correct that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is in the nature of interim order, which is subject to final decision of the case. Normally this Court does not entertain the writ petition against an interlocutory orders. So far as passing of the order from the date of application is concerned, the approach of the Lower Court and the Appellate Court is correct and no interference is called for in the same. So far as the payment of arrears of provisional rent from the date of application till the date of passing of the order is concerned, I think it fit and proper to grant some reasonable time to the defendant to pay the same. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the defendant will pay the arrears of provisional monthly rent of the standard rent determined by the trial Court for the period from 01.12.2000 to March, 2004 in six equal monthly instalments commencing from 15th April, 2008. There will be no order as to costs so far as this writ petition is concerned. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. ashok/