JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.2.1986 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bali. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that Babu Lal filed a suit against the defendant M/s. Shiv Shakti Iron Company for eviction from premises in question and recovery of rent on the ground of default and other grounds. 3. He had not deposited the rent for period from 1.7.1983 to 31.7.1983 on 15.8.1983 but he deposited the rent on 13.9.1983. The trial Court struck out of the defence on account of this default. 4. Aggrieved against this order the tenant-defendant filed the appeal before the Additional District Judge, Bali. Learned Appellate Court confirmed the finding of the trial Court according to the law obtaining at that time. At that time view was that there is no scope for condonation of the delay and as such the learned Judge felt that since the rent was not deposited by the tenant on the date fixed as such defence was struck out. 5. Aggrieved against this judgment of the learned Additional District Judge the tenant-appellant has filed the present revision petition. 6. Mr. Nagori, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court where the earlier view has been watered down and now it has been held that Sections 13(4) and (5) of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction Act), 1950 is directory and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be made for condonation of the delay. It has been observed as under : (1) "Provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be applied in the matter of deposit of rent under Section 13(4) of the Rent Control Act; (2) The Court has power, in the interest of justice and equity to extend time beyond the limit prescribed under Section 13(4) of the Rent Control Act; (3) That Section 13(5) of the Rent Control Act is directory and not mandatory." 7. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel submits that it is true the legal position has undergone considerable change but there is no application filed by the petitioner-tenant stating what prevented him from depositing the rent in time, as such there is no point in remanding this case back to the trial Court. 8. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel submits that it is true the legal position has undergone considerable change but there is no application filed by the petitioner-tenant stating what prevented him from depositing the rent in time, as such there is no point in remanding this case back to the trial Court. 8. I have heard the arguments of both the learned counsel and I am of the view that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court, this case requires to be re-considered afresh. 9. It is fact that the rent for the month of July was deposited on 13th September, 1983 and it is a belated one. There was no provision for making any application for condonation as both the provisions i.e. Sections 4 & 5 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 was held to be mandatory, therefore, as per practice no application were filed. 10. But now this whole legal position has changed. Therefore, in the light of the Judgment of the Full Bench this order passed by the learned Additional District, Judge, Bali dated 22.2.1986 as well as the trial Court, this order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bali on February 19, 1984, both are set aside and case is remanded back to the trial Court to reconsider the question of delay and thereafter passed a fresh order in accordance with law. 11. The revision is allowed. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******