MOHINI KAPUR, J.—The plaintiff petitioners filed a suit for eviction against the non-petitioners on 2.11.1982, and according to him the rent from. 1.1. 1981 to 31.12.1982 had not been paid. The rate of rent was Rs. 11/-p.m. On 15 3 1984, the trial court viz. M.J.M. Chirawa, passed an order, which may be paid to be an order under Sec. 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By this order, he has made the following directions, (1). Rent at the rate of Rs. 11/- p.m. till the date of filing of the suit be deposited within 15 days. (2). The rent after this period and uptil 1.3.1984, be deposited within one month. (3). Thereafter rent be deposited by the first of every month. 2. It was also ordered that if any rent had been deposited then it was not necessary to deposit again. On the objection of the counsel for the defendant, this order was immediately modified and the rent of future-months was allowed to be deposited by the 15th of the next month. 3. The tenant non-petitioner moved an application on 24.4.1984, along-with an application saying that his counsel did not inform him about the direction of the Court to deposit the rent and as such he could not deposit the rent in time and he should be allowed time uptil 30.4.1984, to deposit the rent. The rent was deposited on 27.4.84. The plaintiff landlord objected to the extension of time as was requested by the tenant and the trial court by order dated 27 7. 1984, relying upon 1973 W.L.N. 539, RLW 1973, 615 and AIR 1974 Rajasthan 49, held that the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Act were mandatory and the Court has no power to condone the delay in deposit or rent and as such the defence against the eviction has to be struck off. The tenant preferred an appeal against this order and it came to be decided by the Additional Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu by his order dated 19.10.1985 and this appeal was accepted holding that under Section 13(3) of the Act a period of three months could be given to a party to deposit the rent and it was within the power of the Court to extend time uptil this limit. It was also observed that 15 days could be extended for the deposit of monthly rents as has been provided in Section 13(4) of the Act. Considering this provision the delay in deposit of the rent was condoned. Against this decision the plaintiff landlord has come up in this revision. 4. The points urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that under Section 13(3) and 13(4) of the Act, the Court has no power to extend the time for depositing rent. It is also contended that if the Court proceeds to extend the time or condone the delay, there have to be adequate reasons for doing the same and in the present case the reasons given are not sufficient. According to him, there has been a default in depositing the rent, which was to be deposited under Section 13(3) and there was a default in the deposit of rent for the month of March, 1984 also as it was not deposited by 15th of April but was deposited on 27th April, 1984. His last contention is that the rent under Section 13(4) of the Act has to be deposited month by month and it is not open to the tenant to deposit the rent in advance. 5. The petitioner has placed reliance upon Rampal Vs. The Manager, Sasta Sahitya Press Ltd. (1). This is a decision on the law as it stood prior to the amendment made in 1975 and referring to Section 13(4) as it then was, it was observed that the tenant has to deposit all arrears of rent with interest on the first date of hearing or he must make an application to the Court on the first day of hearing for fixing time to deposit arrears of rent. The Court is not bound to fix time on such application, but in case it exercises its discretion in favour of the tenant and fixes time within which the tenant is allowed to deposit the arrears of rent the time so fixed or subsequently extended by the Court must not exceed two months from the first date of hearing. The Court is not bound to fix time on such application, but in case it exercises its discretion in favour of the tenant and fixes time within which the tenant is allowed to deposit the arrears of rent the time so fixed or subsequently extended by the Court must not exceed two months from the first date of hearing. If the tenant deposits the arrears of rent as specified in sub-section (4) of Section 13 within the time so fixed by the court, his defence against eviction is not be struck out, but if he fails to do so, his defence has to be struck out under Section 13(6). 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the lower appellate court has placed reliance on RLW 1982, 176 and RLW 1980, 42, but these decisions are not applicable to the present case as in these cases the due date, when the rent was to be deposited in Court, fall during the Court Vacations and it was not possible for the tenant to deposit the rent at the specified time. According to him, the tenant cannot be allowed extension of time in deposit of rent in view of these decisions which are not applicable. 7. It has been argued that when a certain period has expired then there can not be an extension of the same and the application for extension of time should have been moved before the time fixed for deposit of rent, expired. 8. As against this the learned counsel for the non-petitioner has contended that the delay in deposit of rent, determined under Section 13(3) as well as delay in deposit of the rent for the month of March, 1984, both fall within the permissible limits, which a Court can extend, for depositing the rent. According to him the application for the extension of time can be moved either prior to the expiry of the time within which the rent was to be paid or even after it. For this purpose, he has placed reliance upon Lal Chand vs. Sant Ram (2). In this case it has been specifically held that an application for extension of time for the payment and condonation of delay may be filed within the period specified in sub-sec. For this purpose, he has placed reliance upon Lal Chand vs. Sant Ram (2). In this case it has been specifically held that an application for extension of time for the payment and condonation of delay may be filed within the period specified in sub-sec. (4) of Section 13 or even after that and the court can even pass an order on such application for extension of time either before the expiry of the period for deposit or thereafter. The only restriction, however, is that an extension in the period for fixing monthly rent cannot be more than 15 days. 9. In Dwarkadas V. Smt. Dropadi (3), it has been held that when the Court has ample power to extend the period to deposit the monthly rent upto 15 days, the time can be extended by the Court taking an over all view of the facts and circumstances placed by the defendant before the Court— "It was held that the provisions of Sec. 13(4) being a beneficial provision should be liberally construed in favour of the tenant. There is no expression as such in this provision that time can be extended only when sufficient cause is shown, which means that the power of extension has to be exercised liberally, so much so that even if the tenant does not deposit the rent in time on account of forget fulness, the Court has power to extend upto 15 days." 10. Though the provisions of Section 13(3) and 13(4) have been explained in the cases of Lalchand Vs. Santram and Dwarka Das Vs. Smt. Dropadi(Supra), but it may still be mentioned that the intention of legislature in enacting Section 13(3) and 13(4) is that in a suit for eviction on the grounds of non-payment of rent by the tenant, the Court has to first make a provisional determination of the amount of rent to be deposited by the tenant, and if no order is passed by the court as to uptil when this amount is to be deposited, then the same is to be deposited within 15 days and this time can be extended by the Court upto three months. The limit is placed here and time more than three months cannot be granted, similarly for the monthly rent which had to be deposited month by month, it has to be deposited by the 15th day of the succeeding month or within such further time not exceeding 15 days as maybe extended by the Court. Both these provisions make no mention of the grounds on which this time can be extended. Nothing can be imported in a provision of law and words to that effect have not been used in it. The provision does not say that the tenant has to make out a sufficient cause for not being able to deposit the rent within the time fixed, before it could be extended. It is left to the discretion of the Court to decide whether the time requested should be extended or not. No mention has also been made that the extension in time has to be requested prior to the expiry of time originally fixed for depositing the rent. 11. Under section 148 C.P.C. the extension in the period within which the rent is to be deposited may be made within the stipulated period or even subsequent to that period and in both cases it will remain extension in the period within which the rent was to be deposited. It will make no difference whether it is referred to as condonation of delay or extension of time when time can be extended even on grounds of forget fulness, it is obvious that the application for extension of time could not have been moved prior to the expiry of the time allowed for payment. 12. Section 13(3) and 13(4) as they now stand do not provide for moving an application to the Court for determining the rent due or for fixing any time for the payment of the same. It is only when the tenant desires extension of time for payment of rent that he has to move an application. The decision in Rampals case (Supra), cannot be pressed into service for purposes of interpreting Section 13(3) and 13(4) as they now stand. 13. It is only when the tenant desires extension of time for payment of rent that he has to move an application. The decision in Rampals case (Supra), cannot be pressed into service for purposes of interpreting Section 13(3) and 13(4) as they now stand. 13. The Court in this case is within its power in extending time for deposit of rent payable under Section 13(3) upto a period of three months and extending period for the deposit of monthly rent upto a period of 15 days, it is the discretion of the Court, which is to be exercised in the circumstances of the case and it is not necessary that the tenant should give satisfactory explanation for each days extension desired by him or should make out a case that he could not in any circumstances deposit the rent within time. 14. In the present case the tenant has given his explanation for being late in the deposit of rent and the lower appellate court has accepted the same and extended the time within permissible limits. In doing so it has not committed any error of jurisdiction so as to call for interference in this revision. 15. One of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant is that it is obligatory on the part of the tenant to deposit the monthly rent month by month and he cannot deposit the same in advance as it will not amount to compliance with the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Act. It appears that for this purpose he has placed reliance on Rampals case (Supra) in which it has been held that deposit of rent month by month is obligatory and if the tenant fails to deposit the same then his defence is liable to be struck out under Section 13(5) of the Act. However, this decision has not dealt with the question as to whether the monthly rent of the period during the pendency of the suit can be deposited in advance or it has to be deposited every month within 15 days of the succeeding month. 16. In raising this contention, it appears that the plaintiff landlord is concerned more with putting the tenant to a lot of inconvenience rather than in ensuring that the rent of the premises is paid to him every month. 16. In raising this contention, it appears that the plaintiff landlord is concerned more with putting the tenant to a lot of inconvenience rather than in ensuring that the rent of the premises is paid to him every month. He wants to grab an opportunity, which he may get, if the tenant makes a default or if for any reason fails to deposit the rent month by month within the time it is to be deposited. 17. The procedure for depositing rent in Court is a lengthy procedure. First a tenant has to fill in a challan form in four parts and present it before the clerk of the court, who makes a report on it that the amount to be deposited can be deposited as per directions in the suit. After the report of the clerk the presiding officer of the Court signs the challan form and thereafter it is entered in a register and a number is allotted to the challan. The tenant then collects the challan form and goes to the bank to deposit the amount. The bank retains one copy of the challan and three copies are returned to the depositor who again takes them to the concerned clerk of the court and he makes an entry about the deposit in the cash/credit deposit register. One copy of the challan is to go to the case file and the other is kept in accounts Section. The party retains one copy of the challan receipt on which the cash/credit deposit number is mentioned. This procedure may appear to be quite inconuot on the face of it but no one can say that it is time consuming and drives a person from pillar to post in achieving the completion of the work. It cannot be the intention of the legislature in directing the tenant to deposit rent every month to put him to all this inconvenience and formality every month. If the tenant is in a position to pay the rent in advance, there is no reason why the tenant should not be allowed to do so. It is his choice whether he pays the money in a lump-sum or he makes monthly rounds of the Court and opens atleast two days every month. If the tenant is in a position to pay the rent in advance, there is no reason why the tenant should not be allowed to do so. It is his choice whether he pays the money in a lump-sum or he makes monthly rounds of the Court and opens atleast two days every month. The intention of the law is to ensure that during the pendency of the suit, rent is regularly paid by the tenant and this payment can be made by him by advance deposit of rent also. To insist upon month by month payment of the monthly rent is nothing but a desire to suit and see that some opportunity conies to the way of the plaintiff so that he may be able to get the defence of the tenant struck-out. The contention of the petitioner that the rent is to be deposited every month and cannot be deposited in advance is without force. 18. In view of my above findings on the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, this revision has no force and is dismissed with costs.