JUDGMENT 1. - This is a defendant-appellant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1981 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Kota in civil appeal No.14/81-103/81 upholding the judgment and decree dated 15-1-1981 passed by the learned Additional Munsif, No.2 (South), Kota in Civil Suit No.4/77 (62/79). The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under: The plaintiff-respondent Moorti Mandir Ganeshji Dhanroopji had filed a suit for eviction of the defendant-appellant from the shop in dispute on the ground of non-payment of rent and of subletting. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendant- appellant was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.3.1979 and had committed default in payment of rent for a period of more than six months and also that he had sub-let the shop in dispute and had parted with its possession in favour of one Shri Prabhudas. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant, who denied having sub-let the property in dispute to Prabhudas and also pleaded that he had tendered the rent for the relevant period to the plaintiff- respondent but the plaintiff-respondent had not accepted it. The learned trial Court determined the rent of the premises and passed an order dated 25.4.1977 under Sub-section (3) of Section 16 (sic Section 13) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (the Act) directing the defendant-appellant to pay the arrears of rent at the admitted rate of Rs. 15/- per month within 15 days from the date-of the said order and also to pay future rent month-by-month by 15th of each succeeding month. The defendant-appellant deposited the arrears of rent on 2.5.1977 and thereafter kept on depositing the rent at the agreed rate, but instead of depositing the rent for the month of May, 1978 by 15th of June, 1978, he deposited it on 10th of July, 1978. An application was moved by the plaintiff- respondent under Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act stating that the defendant-appellant had failed to comply with the order passed, by the learned Court under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act and praying that his defence against eviction should be struck-out. The application was opposed. An application was moved by the plaintiff- respondent under Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act stating that the defendant-appellant had failed to comply with the order passed, by the learned Court under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act and praying that his defence against eviction should be struck-out. The application was opposed. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties vide order dated 21.5.1979, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the rent for the month of May, 1978 was deposited late and, as such, the defence of the defendant-appellant was liable to be struck-out. He, consequently, passed the order striking-out the defence of the defendant-appellant. Thereafter the learned trial Court framed issues and recorded the statements of the plaintiff-respondent and without giving an opportunity to the defendant-appellant either to cross-examine the plaintiff or to produce the evidence in rebuttal, passed the decree of eviction against the defendant-appellant and in favour of the plaintiff-respondent on both the grounds above said. The appeal filed by the defendant appellant was dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Kota. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant-appellant has approached this Court by filing this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code). 2. I have heard Shri K.K.Mehrish, the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant, Shri J.S.Rastogi, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent and have also perused the record of the case. 3. It is not disputed before me that the right of a defendant to defend the suit is a very valuable right and it cannot be taken away except on strong grounds. In a Full Bench decision of this Court in Vishandas V/s Savitri Devil 1988 (1) RLR page 1 it has been held that a Court is not bound to strike out the defence as and when a tenant commits default in payment of rent in compliance with the order passed by the court under Subsection (3) of Section 13 of the Act and that the court has a discretion in the matter. Shri Mehrish has contended that there were summer vacations in the courts and, as such, the rent for the month of May, 1978 could not be deposited by 15th of June, 1978 and that in view of the decision of this Court in case Ramkishore V/s. Roopesh Kumar 1982 RLR 283 = 1982 RLW page 176 the defendant-appellant could deposit the rent within 15 days from the date of re-opening of the courts and the courts having re-opened on 26th of June, 1978 and the defendant- appellant having deposited the rent on 10th of July, 1978, his defence could not be struck-out. To be fair to the learned trial court and to the learned first Appellate Court it may be recorded that before the decision of Vishandas's case (supra) this court had taken the view that the Court has no discretion in the matter and is bound to strike out the defence of a tenant if he fails to comply with the order passed by the Court under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act; and further that even Ramkishore's case (supra) was decided after the decision of the present case by the learned lower courts. In order to make it clear it is emphasised that it is only when the court comes to the conclusion that default in complying with the order passed by it under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act was wilful and contumacious that the court can exercise its power of striking out the defence of a tenant-defendant and take away his valuable right of defending the suit. There is nothing to show that the default in depositing the rent of the month of May, 1978 was wilful and contumacious and there is no such finding recorded by the courts below and it appears that the order was passed in view of the earlier legal view taken by this court. The substantial question of law which arises for consideration in this second appeal is as to whether a decree passed on the basis of wrong understanding of law by the courts below can be allowed to take away the right of a party to a suit and my answer to the said question is in the negative. In these circumstances, the order striking out the defence of the defendant-appellant, cannot be upheld and has to be set-aside. In these circumstances, the order striking out the defence of the defendant-appellant, cannot be upheld and has to be set-aside. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, after striking out the defence of the defendant-appellant, and upheld by the learned first Appellate Court has also to be set-aside. 4. In the result, I accept this appeal, set-aside the order dated 21.5.1979 striking out the defence of the defendant-appellant and the consequent judgments and decrees passed by both the learned lower courts and remand the case to.the learned trial court for decision in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. 5. The parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 19.2.1991 on which date the learned trial court will fix the necessary dates for trial of the suit. Since, the matter is an old one, the learned trial court is directed to decide it without any delay and without giving unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. The record of the learned trial court be sent back immediately so as to reach the learned trial court latest by 16.2.1991.Appeal accepted. *******