JUDGMENT 1. - This is a defendant's revision petition against the appellate order of the Addl. District Judge, Nagaur, dated 16.9.1980, whereby the order of the Muttsiff, Nagaur striking out the defence of the defendant dated 9.5.1979 was upheld. 2. The case has a somewhat chequered history. The plaintiff Natal instituted a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment of the shop in question on 14.7.1975 inter alia, on the ground of default. The plaintiff claimed arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 604/- and it was averred that the defendant is a tenant w.e.f. 9.4 1970 at the rate of Rs. 40/- p.m. and the tenancy was oral. 3. The defendant Motilal submitted an application under Section 13 (5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, (herein after called the Act), on 13 of 1975. In this application, he disputed the amount of rent due and stated that the rent up to 6.2.1975 has already been paid and rent from 7.2.1975 to 6.8 1975 of six months amounting to Rs. 240/- and interest thereon amounting to Rs. 42/- and a sum more than the total thereof i.e. to the tune of Rs. 300/- are being deposited. It was prayed that the court may determine the amount of rent due and interest thereon. The defendant also attached a schedule to the application showing the payment of rent on different dates upto 6.2.1975. 4. A written Statement was filed by the defendant on 14.1.1976. 5. On 2.9.1975, the plaintiff submitted an application under section 13(5) of the Act as then stood stating that the defendant has not deposited the amount of rent to the tune of Rs. 604/- with interest thereon on the first date of hearing so the defendant's defence may be struck out. On the same date he also filed reply to the defendant's application under Section 13 (5) in which it was prayed that the defendant's application be dismissed and his defence be struck out. It is pertinent to make a mention here that the Act was amended by the Rajasthan Amendment Ordinance No. 26/1975, which was replaced by the Amending Act No. 14/1976, w.e.f. 22.9 1975. On 22.10.1975, the defendant submitted an application Under section 13-A as amended by the Amending Act. It is pertinent to make a mention here that the Act was amended by the Rajasthan Amendment Ordinance No. 26/1975, which was replaced by the Amending Act No. 14/1976, w.e.f. 22.9 1975. On 22.10.1975, the defendant submitted an application Under section 13-A as amended by the Amending Act. No. 1/4/1976, in which it was prayed that the court may determine the amount of arrears of rent due, interest thereon and the cost of the suit and a date may be fixed for depositing the same. On 16.12.1975, the plaintiff submitted reply to that application. On 6.1.1976, argument were beard on the defendant's application for determination of rent and on the plaintiff's application for striking out the defence. According to the defendant, a sum of Rs. 300/- was deposited on the first date of hearing which was due, whereas the plaintiff's version is that a sum of Rs. 604/- was due, on the first date of hearing. The court, in view of the fact that there was a dispute between the parties with regard to the payment of rent and the amount of rent due and the dispute pertains to a question of fact so the court ordered that the question cannot be determined without recording evidence and so the court deferred the decisions of both the applications till evidence of the parties is recorded on this disputed question of fact. The defendant thereafter examined himself as D W. 1 and produced two witnesses, D. W. 2 Ghanshyam and D.W. 3 Ahmed Husain. In rebuttal the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and produced Poonam Chand P.W.2 and Arjun Mal P.W.3. After recording the evidence, the learned Munsif on 4.7.1977 determined the amount of rent to the tune of Rs. 604/- and interest thereon amounting to Rs 320/- total Rs. 924/- out of which a sum of Rs. 300/- was already deposited by the defendant. The defendant was directed to deposit the remaining amount Rs. 624 within 15 days and the defendant was further directed to deposit the amount of rent every month in accordance with law. It appears that the defendant Motilal went in appeal against the order of determination of arrears of rent dated 4.7.1977. 300/- was already deposited by the defendant. The defendant was directed to deposit the remaining amount Rs. 624 within 15 days and the defendant was further directed to deposit the amount of rent every month in accordance with law. It appears that the defendant Motilal went in appeal against the order of determination of arrears of rent dated 4.7.1977. His appeal was allowed on 15.10.1977 and the order dated 4.7.1977 was set aside and the case was sent back to the learned Munsiff with the direction that both the applications of the defendant be decided in accordance with law. It would appear that the defendant's application under section 13-A was not decided. After remand of the case the learned Munsiff by his order dated 1.12.1977, decided the defendant's application under section 13-A and directed the defendant to deposit rent upto that date amounting to Rs 604/- with interest thereon at the rate of 6% p.a and cost of the suit. The payment was to be made within 30 days from the dated of the order. While rejecting the defendant's application under section 13(5)(old), the learned Munsiff observed that the old provisions contained under section 13 (4) and (5) having ceased to exist, the defendant's application has automatically come to an end. 6. Dissatisfied with the order dated 1.12.1977, an appeal was preferred by the defendant but the same was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on 15.4.1978. It needs mention that on 23 12.1977, the defendant applied for extension of time for deposit of rent up to 31.1.1978 on which the court allowed the defendant time to deposit rent up to 31.1.1978. 7. On 31.1 1978, again the defendant submitted an application for extension of one month's time thereupon the court further allowed the defendant one month's time to deposit the amount of rent. It appears that the defendant failed to deposit the amount of rent within the time extended by the court. Thereafter the plaintiff moved an application on 29.6.1978 under section 13 (5) of the Act as amended by Act No. 14,1976 for striking out the defence of the defendant on the ground that the defendant has failed to deposit the amount of rent on 11.8.1978 a reply to the application was filed by the defendant. Thereafter the plaintiff moved an application on 29.6.1978 under section 13 (5) of the Act as amended by Act No. 14,1976 for striking out the defence of the defendant on the ground that the defendant has failed to deposit the amount of rent on 11.8.1978 a reply to the application was filed by the defendant. Arguments were heard on the plaintiff's application under section 13(5) and the learned Munsiff allowed the application and struck out the defence the defendant by his order dated 9.5.1979. On appeal by the defendant learned Additional District Judge upheld the order of the learned Munsiff by his order dated 16.9.1980. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Nagaur, the present revision petition has been filed by the defendant. 9. This revision petition raised an important and a complicated question of law. 10. Shri M. L. Chhangani learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner submitted that on failure of the defendant to comply with the order passed on the defendant's application under Section 13-A, no application is maintainable by the plaintiff under section 13(5) of the Act. According to him Section 13 (5) of the Act is attracted only when the tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in sub-section (4) on the date or within the time specified therein. Shri Chhangani urged that sub-section (5) of Section 13 has necessarily reference to the provisions contained in sub sections (3) and (4). The court is enquired to determine the amount of rent provisionally together with the interest thereon under sub-section (3) and the tenant is enquired to deposit the amount so determined within 15 days or within such further time not exceeding three months, as may be extended by the Court under sub-section (4), Shri Chhangani emphasised that as there is no determination of rent under sub-section (3) so the defendant was not enquired to deposit the rent under sub-section (4) and as such, subsection (5) would not at all come into play and the plaintiffs application under sub-section (5) of section 13 is not maintainable Both the courts have seriously erred in law in allowing the plaintiffs application and striking out the defence against eviction of the defendant. 11. 11. Shri Chhangani submitted that no provision has been made under section 13-A similar to the provision contained in sub-section (5) of section 13 and sub-section (5) of section 13, cannot be read as part of section 13-A. What he means to submit is that when the tenant does not comply with the order of the court for deposit of arrears of rent, interest and cost, then the defendant's defence cannot be struck out for there is no such provision. He pointed out and maintained that the only course open to the court was to proceed under section 13(3) and determine the rent provisionally together with the interest thereon and thereafter, to call upon the defendant to make payment thereof within the time as contemplated under sub-section (4). As no such order has been passed in the present case, the plaintiff's application at present, in the absence of determination of amount of rent and interest under section 13(3), is misconceived. 12. Mr. N. M. Singhvi learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondent, on the other hand, submitted that section 13-A is a special provision which applies to all pending cases and the defendant by moving an application under section 13-A availed of this provision when the court after recording the evidence of parties determined the arrears of rent, interest and cost but the defendant piled to deposit the amount so determined even within the extended time.He submitted that sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 13 should be deemed to have been replaced by section 13-A and it should further be deemed that the order passed under section 13-A is in the nature of the order passed under sub-section (3) and the amount is to be deposited under sub-section (4). Thus the plaintiff's application for non-compliance of the order under sub-section (3)according to Mr. Singhvi was maintainable under sub-section (5) of section 13. Shri Singhvi made references to some case law which if needed, I shall refer at the appropriate place though I may state here that the cases referred to by Mr Singhvi have no direct bearing on the question with which I am presently confronted. 13. For proper appreciation and adjudication of the controversy, which has arisen in the present revision petition, it is necessary to read the relevant provisions of sections 13(4),(5),(6) and (7)as they stood prior to the Amending Act No. 14/1976. 13. For proper appreciation and adjudication of the controversy, which has arisen in the present revision petition, it is necessary to read the relevant provisions of sections 13(4),(5),(6) and (7)as they stood prior to the Amending Act No. 14/1976. (4) In a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (a) of sub section (1 ), with or without any of the other grounds referred to in that subsection, the tenant shall, on the first day of hearing or on or before such date as the court may, on an application made to it, fix in this behalf, or within such time, not exceeding two months, as may be extended by the court, deposit in court or pay to the landlord an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid, for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit or payment is made together with interest on such amount calculated at the rate of six percent per annum from the date when any such amount was payable upto the date of deposit and shall thereafter continue to deposit or pay, month by month, by the fifteenth of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate. (5) If in any suit referred to in sub-section (4), there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the court shall determine, having regard to the provisions of this Act, the amount to be deposited or paid to the landlord by the tenant, within fifteen days from the date of such order, in accordance with the provisions of section (4). (6) If a tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in sub-section (4) or sub-section (5), on the date or within the time specified therein, the court shall order the defence against eviction to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit. (7) If a tenant makes deposit or payment as enquired by sub-section (4) or sub-section (5), no decree for eviction on the ground specified in clause (a) of subsection (1) shall be passed by the court but the court may allow such costs as it may deem fit to the landlord. 14. (7) If a tenant makes deposit or payment as enquired by sub-section (4) or sub-section (5), no decree for eviction on the ground specified in clause (a) of subsection (1) shall be passed by the court but the court may allow such costs as it may deem fit to the landlord. 14. After amendment by the Amending Act of 14/1976 the provisions of Section 13(3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) and relevant provisions of Sections 13-A read as under: (3) In a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (a) of sub-section (1) with or without any of the other grounds referred to in that sub-section, the court shall, on the first date of hearing or on 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 before the framing of the issues, after hearing the parties and on the basis of material on record provisionally determine the amount of rent to be deposited in court or paid to the landlord by the tenant. Such amount shall be calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid or was payable for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent thereto upto the end of two month previous to that in which such determination is made together with interest on such amount calculated at the rate of six percent per annum from the date when any such amount was payable upto the date of determination: Provided that while determining the amount under this subsection, the court shall not take into account the amount of rent which was barred by limitation on the date of the filing of the suit. (4) The tenant shall deposit in court or pay to the landlord the amount determined by the court under sub-section (3) within fifteen days from the date of such determination, or within such further time, not exceeding three months as may be extended by the court. (4) The tenant shall deposit in court or pay to the landlord the amount determined by the court under sub-section (3) within fifteen days from the date of such determination, or within such further time, not exceeding three months as may be extended by the court. The tenant shall also continue to deposit in court or pay to the landlord, month by month the monthly rent subsequent to the period upto which determination has been made, by the fifteenth of each succeeding month or within such further time, not exceeding fifteen days, as may be extended by the court, at the monthly rate at which the rent was determined by the court under sub-section (3). (5) If tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in subsection (4) on the date or within the time specified therein, the court shall order the defence against eviction to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit. (6) If a tenant makes deposit or payment as enquired by sub-section (4) no decree for eviction on the ground specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall be passed by the court against him: Provided that a tenant shall not be entitled to any relief under this sub-section, if having obtained such benefit or benefits under section 13-A in respect of any such accommodation. If he again makes a default in the payment of rent of that accommodation for six months. If he again makes a default in the payment of rent of that accommodation for six months. (7) If any suit referred to in sub section (3), there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the court shall decide the dispute finally at the time of decision of the suit and may, at that time, pass such orders regarding costs or interest, as having regard to the circumstances of the case, it deems fit- Section 13-A, Special provisions relating to pending and other matters (Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act as it existed before the commencement of the Amending Ordinance or any other law, (a) No court shall, in any proceeding pending on the date of commencement of the (Amending Ordinance) pass any decree in favour of landlord for eviction of a tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent, if the tenant applies under clause (b) and pays to the landlord, or deposits in court; within such time such aggregate of the amount or rent in arrears, interest thereon and full costs of the suit as may be directed by the court under and in accordance with that clause; (b) In every such proceeding, the court shall on the application of the tenant made within thirty days from the date of commencement of the (amending ordinance) notwithstanding any order to the contrary, determine the amount of rent is arrears upto the date of the order as also the amount of interest thereon at 6% per annum and costs of the suit allowable to the landlord and direct the tenant to pay the amount so determined within such time, not exceeding ninety days, as may be fixed by the court; and on such payment being made within the time fixed as aforesaid, the proceeding shall be disposed of as if tenant had not committed any default. 15. It may be stated that there is no provision under Section 13-A analogous to the provisions contained in sub-section (6) as it stood prior to the amendment of 1975 and sub-section (5) as it stands today after the Amendment of 1976. 15. It may be stated that there is no provision under Section 13-A analogous to the provisions contained in sub-section (6) as it stood prior to the amendment of 1975 and sub-section (5) as it stands today after the Amendment of 1976. A comparative study of the relevant provisions at they stood prior to the amendment, and after the amendment will make it clear that prior to the amendment, there was an obligation on the defendant to deposit rent on the first date of hearing or within such time as may be extended by the court under that provision with interest on the amount of arrears of rent and if there is a dispute with regard to the amount of rent payable and that dispute has been raised by the defendant then the tenant is enquired to deposit the amount of rent as provided in subsection (5). Failure of deposit of the amount under sub-section (4) or (5) within specified time would render the defence against the eviction to be struck out by the court under sub-section (5). After the amendment under sub-section (3) the court is required to provisionally determine the amount of rent together with 6% interest thereon upto the date of determination and under sub-section (4), the tenant is enquired to deposit that amount within 15 days or within the time extended by the court not exceeding three months. There is a further obligation on the part of the defendant to continue to deposit the amount of rent by the 15th of each succeeding month a provision similar to the old provision contained in sub-section (4) attracts the provision of sub-section (5) wherein the court is enquired to order the defence against the eviction to be struck out. 16. Section 13-A is a special provision relating to the pending matters. This Section has been enacted with a view to confer benefit on the defaulting tenants. 16. Section 13-A is a special provision relating to the pending matters. This Section has been enacted with a view to confer benefit on the defaulting tenants. In this provision if the tenant makes an application within 30 days from the date of commencement of the amending ordinance under clause (b) of Section 13-A, then the court is enquired to determine the amount of arrears of rent up to date and interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum and cost of the suit and the tenant is enquired to deposit the amount so determined within such time not exceeding ninety days, as may be fixed by the Court. This provision had a life only for a period of thirty days from the commencement of the Ordinance. 17. Admittedly, the defendant in this case had availed this provision and moved an application on 22-10-1975. The defendant had already moved an application under Section 13(5) (old) on 13-8-1975. Thus there were two applications of the defendant, one under Section 13(5) (old) and other under section 13 A. I may refer here to a decision cited by Mr. Singhvi, wherein a similar question arose as to whether application under Section 13(5) (Old) can continue along with the defendant-tenants application under section 13-A. 18. The decision is in M/s. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Goyal, AIR 1979 Rajasthan 1. In that case the defendant filed an application under Section 13(5), on 7th August 1975 prior to the Amending Act, of 1976 and after the Amending Act, he submitted another application under Section 13-A (b) on 28th October, 1975. It was contended in this case by the learned counsel for the defendant that the application under section 13(5) should not have been rejected by the learned District Judge and the provision of section 13(5) was more beneficial as under the provision the tenant was not enquired to pay cost and it was urged that both the provisions i.e. Section 13-A of the Amending Act and Section 13(4) and (5)of the Act before the Amendment can exist together and the tenant is entitled to take advantage of either of the two provisions. 19. This contention of learned counsel for the defendant was repelled and it was observed that Section 13-A being a special provision and it begins with non-constant clause, thus this provision overrides the other provisions of- the Act. 19. This contention of learned counsel for the defendant was repelled and it was observed that Section 13-A being a special provision and it begins with non-constant clause, thus this provision overrides the other provisions of- the Act. The provision under Section 13-A will supersede the provisions contained in sub-sections (4)and (5) and it was also observed in that case that i after the Amending Act, the tenant can only resort to the provisions of section 13-A in a pending suit and the learned District Judge was right in rejecting the defendant's application under section 13(5) (OLD) of the Act. 20. In the present case as well the defendant's application under section 13(5) has been rejected by the learned Munsiff by the observation that, that application has automatically come to an end and the learned Munsiff proceeded to pass an order on the defendant's application under section 13-A, though in M/s. Carona Sahu Company's case an application under section 13-A was not disposed of so the case was sent back for orders on that application. The case of M/s. Carona Sahu Company does not throw light on the question that when the tenant fails to comply with the order passed on his application under Section 13-A, his defence against the eviction is liable to be struck off. It is this question with which I am faced in the present revision petition. The question arises whether the provision contained in sub-section (5) as it stands today, can be read in the provision of Section 13-A. Straight off, it can be said that literally sub-section (5) of Section 13 cannot be attracted to the case when tenant does not deposit or pay the amount of the, interest and cost as determined and ordered under Section 13-A. If the contention as advanced by Shri Singhvi is upheld, it would mean that the court is re- writing the statute, which in my opinion is beyond the powers and jurisdiction of the court. Even when it is a case of cases omissus, such lacuna, gap, deficiency or defeat in the statute cannot be the Court. 21. The following observations of Denning L.J. came up for severe criticism at the hands of the House of Lords and they were plainly dis approved. "When a defect appears a judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the draft . 21. The following observations of Denning L.J. came up for severe criticism at the hands of the House of Lords and they were plainly dis approved. "When a defect appears a judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the draft . He must set to work on the constructive task of finding the intention of Parliament........ and then he must supplement the written words so as to give' force and life' to the intention of the legislatures. A judge should ask himself the question how, if the makers of the Act had themselves come across this ruck in the texture of it, they would have straightened it out ? He must then do as they would have done. A judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases. "In a subsequent case he restated the same thing in a new form; "We sit here to find out the intention of Parliament and of ministers and carry it out, and we do this better by filling in the gaps and making sense of the enactment than opening it upto destructive analysis. "Lord Simonds said "It appears to me" to be a naked usurpation of the legislative function under the thin disguise of interpretation. "Lord Morton (with whom Lord Goddard entirely agreed) observed: These heroics are out of place" pointed out "Your Lordships would be acting in a legislative rather than a judicial capacity if the view put forward by Denning, L.J., were to prevail." Their Lordships of the Supreme Court had also an occasion to consider the dictum of law. 22. In M/s. Jit Ram Shiv Kumar and others v. The State of Haryana, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1285 it was observed as under : "Lord Denning might have exhorted the Judges not the be timorous souls but to be bold spirits, ready to allow a new cause of action if justice so requires. These are lofty ideals which one should steadfastly pursue. But before embarking on this mission, it is necessary for the Court to understand clearly its limitations. the powers of the Courts to legislate is strictly limited. "Judge ought to remember that their office is juicer and not jus dare, to interpret law, and not to make law or give law". 23. But before embarking on this mission, it is necessary for the Court to understand clearly its limitations. the powers of the Courts to legislate is strictly limited. "Judge ought to remember that their office is juicer and not jus dare, to interpret law, and not to make law or give law". 23. Thus in the light of the principle and canon of interpretation as stated above, sub-section (5) of section 13 cannot he read as part of section 13-A and it cannot be said that the order which has been passed under section 13-A may be treated as an order under sub-section (4). 24. On analysis of the provisions of section 13(3) and (4) and section 13-A, it will be clear that under section 13(3), the determination of rent is only provisional. I need not go into the question as to whether under section I3-A, time barred rent can be determined or not but so far as section 13(3) is concerned, there is a proviso to section 13(3) that time barred rent shall not be taken into account. Under section 13-A, the expression used is arrears. Apart from that there is another point of distinction between the two provisions i.e. with regard to cost. Under section 13-A, costs are also enquired to be determined which are to be paid by the defendant-tenant but it is not so under section 13(3). Sub-section (5) of section 13, thus, only deals with the situation when the tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to under subsection (4) and it does not deal with the situation where the tenant fails to deposit the arrears of rent, interest and cost as determined under section 13-A. In my opinion sub-section (5) of section 13 cannot be attracted when the tenant makes default in payment of deposit of arrears of rent, interest and cost under section 13-A 25. However, I am unable to agree with the submission made by Shri Chhangani that the Court have only proceeded to determine the amount of rent provisionally under sub-section (3) of Section 13 so that the tenant could deposit the amount of rent and interest under sub-section (4) In this connection, it may be stated that the tenant elected a remedy under section 13-A which conferred a special benefit on him, as on compliance of the order passed under section 13-A, the suit for eviction on the ground of default has to be disposed of as if no default has been committed. It cannot be conceived that the question of determination of arrears of rent may be intended by the legislature to be determined twice, in one case finally and in the other case provisionally. The argument of Shri Chhangani would mean that despite the final determination of the amount of arrears of rent after recording evidence of the parties the court must again determine the amount of rent provisionally under section 13(3). Such a position is beyond comprehension. It is significant that in the present case the application under section 13-A has been disposed of after recording the evidence of both the parties as the question involved was a question of fact. Having so determined on the basis of evidence, it is in conceivable that recourse may be had to sub-section(3) of section 13 and the court may be called upon to determine the amount of tent again and that too only provisionally, thereby give a go by the final determination of the arrears of rent under section 13-A. 26. In a situation like the present one, in my opinion the provisions sections 13(3) and (4) and provisions of section 13-A should be harmoniously construed in the manner that when the tenant makes an application under section 13-A for availing of a special benefit under the special provision and an order has been passed after recording evidence of the parties, so far as the question of arrears of rent is concerned, that it stands finally determined between the parties in that connection. When an application under section 13-A has been decided and the tenant has failed to deposit the arrears of rent, interest and cost, then there is no question of striking out the defence. When an application under section 13-A has been decided and the tenant has failed to deposit the arrears of rent, interest and cost, then there is no question of striking out the defence. The issue between the parties with regard to the ground of default will be determined and if the ground under section 13(1)(a) is established the landlord would be entitled to a decree for eviction. 27. As has been stated above, section 13-A being a special Provision, it will override the other general Provisions of the Act and sub-section (3) and (4) may be considered to be general. Provisions in relation to the provisions of section 13-A, sub section (3) of course can be attracted to a case when the stage of the case referred to the rein is still there. 28. I need not deal with the situation when the Provision of section 13-A is not resorted to by the defendant and the court proceeds to determine the rent provisionally under section 13(3). As stated above the Provisions of sections 13-A can be availed only within 30 days of the commencement of the Amending Ordinance and not thereafter. If this provision is once availed and if the tenant acts in accordance with the order passed by the court, then the ground of default, will not remain as the suit shall be disposed of as if no default has been committed and there is no liability or obligation to deposit monthly rent thereafter as is provided under sub-section (4). In case the tenant fails to deposit the arrears of rent, then the suit shall proceed regard being had to the findings arrived at by court while determining the arrears of rent and if it is found that the tenant the neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months, then the landlord would be entitled to a decree for eviction, 29. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this revision petition deserves to be allowed in view of the fact that the plaintiff's application under section 13(5) was not maintainable. 30. Accordingly the revision petition is allowed. The orders of the courts below dated 16.9.1980 and 9.5.1979, are set aside, and the plaintiff's application under section 13(5) is dismissed. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this revision petition deserves to be allowed in view of the fact that the plaintiff's application under section 13(5) was not maintainable. 30. Accordingly the revision petition is allowed. The orders of the courts below dated 16.9.1980 and 9.5.1979, are set aside, and the plaintiff's application under section 13(5) is dismissed. The case shall now go back to the trial court for being decided in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above.Petition allowed. *******