JUDGMENT 1. This second appeal of the tenant arises out of a suit for rent and ejectment filed by the landlord respondent. 2. In brief, the facts are that the tenant-appellant had been given a property on rent by the landlord-respondent. According to the landlord the tenant had not paid rent w.e.f. Asauj Sudi 11, Samvat 2039 to Magh Sudi 10, Samvat 2040. Thus, he had committed default in payment of rent for more than six months and the landlord had acquired a right to seek eviction of the tenant. The suit was contested by the tenant, who in his written statement asserted that he is doing business in the name and style of 'Ram Band' in the disputed premises for the last 40 years. The initial rent was र 10/-. The rent was paid to the predecessor in title of the landlord. Subsequently, the rent was increased from time to time, and, in the last the tenant has been paying the rent of र 35/-per month. The landlord wanted the vacation of tenanted premises, but, the tenant declined to do the same. Thereafter, the landlord stopped accepting the rent, although, the tenant had offered the same to the landlord on many occasions. He also asked the landlord to give the account number, but, the landlord did not disclose the account number and gave oral promises. On the basis of the aforesaid assertion, the tenant asserted that he had not committed any default in payment of rent. The learned trial court passed an order on 1.10.84 and determined the arrears of rent and interest as र 950/-. The tenant deposited the amount of rent within the time specified by the trial court. 3. The landlord filed an application dated, 1.4.85 under section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, alleging that the tenant had not made payment of monthly rent regularly for the months of November and December, 1984 and therefore, his defence should be struck of. The tenant contested this application by filing a reply dated, 6.5.85. In this reply he asserted that he had went to the plaintiff to offer rent but the landlord declined to accept the same. He had suddenly to go to Barmer for his professional work. From there he remitted the rent to the landlord by money order at Barmer, but the same was not accepted. In this reply he asserted that he had went to the plaintiff to offer rent but the landlord declined to accept the same. He had suddenly to go to Barmer for his professional work. From there he remitted the rent to the landlord by money order at Barmer, but the same was not accepted. When he came back from Barmer, he was advised to deposit the rent; the same was done by him. He further stated that the suit ought to have been dismissed, as soon as he had deposited the amount of rent as determined by the Court. He prayed that the delay in making of the deposit of rent may be done (sic condoned) and the suit be dismissed under section 13(6) of the 1950 Act. The learned Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer (East), passed an order on 7.5.1985 and held that the tenant had not deposited the monthly rent. While taking note of the fact that the tenant in fact, had sent the money order from Barmer and had produced the money receipt in respect of this assertion, learned Munsiff held that there was no justification for sending the rent by money order. Learned Munsiff also did not accept the plea raised on behalf of the tenant that the suit should have been dismissed immediately after the tenant had deposited the amount of rent determined by the trial court vide its order dated, 1.10.84. In doing so, the learned Munsiff observed that the tenant had in his written statement not accepted default in payment of rent and an issue had also been framed in that regard and the burden was on the defendant, therefore, the suit could not be dismissed by giving benefit of Section 13(6). The tenant had committed default in payment of rent and, therefore, his defence had to be struck of. 4. Thereafter, vide judgment and decree dated, 21.5.85 the learned Munsiff decreed the suit for eviction by holding that the tenant had not paid the rent to the landlord. Learned Munsiff also held that the tenant had not made deposit in terms of Section 13(4) of 1950 Act. 5. On appeal, learned Additional District Judge No. 2 Ajmer, held that the tenant could have proved that he had not committed any default in payment of rent. Learned Munsiff also held that the tenant had not made deposit in terms of Section 13(4) of 1950 Act. 5. On appeal, learned Additional District Judge No. 2 Ajmer, held that the tenant could have proved that he had not committed any default in payment of rent. He concurred with the learned trial court that the suit could not have been dismissed after the deposit of rent by the tenant on the basis of determination made under section 13 (3) of 1950 Act. He further held that the tenant had failed to make deposit of rent in terms of Section 13(4) of the Act. 6. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has, in the first instance argued that after the determination of rent, learned trial court ought to have dismissed the suit in view of the provisions contained in Section 13(6) of the Act of 1950. 7. The second contention advanced by the learned counsel is that the view taken by the courts below about the provisions of Section 13(5) is wholly erroneous. The provision has been held to be a directory by a Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. More-over, when the tenant had sent the money order, there was no reason for the landlord to have declined to accept the same and then make the allegation of non-payment of rent. 8. Shri J.C. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, argued that although ordinarily the suit based on the ground of default simpliciter should be disposed of immediately on deposit of rent by the tenant on the basis of the determination made under section 13 (3), but if the suit remains pending, it is obligatory for the tenant to deposit the rent as per the provisions contained in Section 13(4). If the tenant fails to make deposit of the rent he is not entitled to the benefit of Section 13(6) of 1950 Act. Shri Jain further argued that the provisions of Section-13(5) was treated as mandatory even by this Court and, therefore, the learned Munsiff had not committed any error n striking out defence of the tenant. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Shri Jain further argued that the provisions of Section-13(5) was treated as mandatory even by this Court and, therefore, the learned Munsiff had not committed any error n striking out defence of the tenant. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. So far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the question stands concluded by a Division bench decision in Yogendra Sharma v. Narain Das, 1988 (1) RLR 286 . The Division Bench considered various decisions rendered by different benches of this court and then observed that, if the, suit for eviction is based on number of grounds out of which default of payment of rent is one of them, the suit proceeds further on other grounds even after the deposit of rent as determined under section 13(3) and the tenant is under obligation to deposit the rent month by month, if he wants to seek protection of Section 13(6). If the suit is based on default in payment of rent, then too, different situations may arise. Ordinarily, if the tenant deposits the arrears of rent with interest, the Court has simply to dismiss the suit for eviction. In that event, the tenant is not required to deposit the rent month by month, but, if the tenant seeks to deposit the rent under section 13(3) then he shall have to deposit the rent month by month for the extended period before the suit is finally disposed under section 13(6) of the Act of 1950. It is, therefore, clear that ordinarily, the learned trial court ought to have disposed of the suit immediately after the tenant had made deposit of arrears of rent together with interest; but, since the suit had continued even after the deposit of rent, it was tenant's obligation to have deposited the rent month by month as required by Section 13(4) of 1950 Act. 10. On the question, as to whether section 13(5) is mandatory or not, there had been some conflict of opinions. This conflict has been set at rest by a Full Bench decision in Vishan Das v. Savitri Devi, 1988 (1) RLR 1 . 10. On the question, as to whether section 13(5) is mandatory or not, there had been some conflict of opinions. This conflict has been set at rest by a Full Bench decision in Vishan Das v. Savitri Devi, 1988 (1) RLR 1 . The Full Bench of the Court held that Section 13(5) is directory and not mandatory and the Court has power in the interest of justice and equity to have extended the time beyond the limit prescribed under section 13(4). 11. In Ramesh Chandra v. Man Mohan Singh and another, 1988 (2) RLR 194 (J.S. Verma J. as he then was), held that the provision of section 13(5) is directory. His Lordship further held that, if the tenant had made payment of entire remaining amount, the proper exercise of the discretion would be to decline the striking out of defence under section 13(5). In view of these decisions I am inclined to hold that the action of the learned trial court in striking out the defence of the tenant was wholly unjustified. The learned trial court had treated the provisions of Section 13(5) to be mandatory and had proceeded to ignore the fact that the tenant had, in fact, sent the rent by money order and had produced receipts of money order in support of his assertion. If the provisions of Section 13(5) are taken to be directory, it must be held that the courts below were in clear error in proceeding on the assumption that the tenant had made himself liable for eviction on the ground that his defence was struck out because of the non-deposit of rent in terms of section 13(4) of 1950 Act. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that this Court should remand the matter back for fresh decision. Having taken note of the undisputed facts which have come on record I am fully convinced that it is not a fit case which should be remanded back for fresh decision. In doing so, I have taken into consideration the fact that no evidence was led before the trial court about the factum of default. Even the framing of issue regarding default was wholly erroneous, because, the learned trial court had placed the burden on the tenant to prove that he had not committed default. This approach of the learned trial courts was wholly erroneous. Even the framing of issue regarding default was wholly erroneous, because, the learned trial court had placed the burden on the tenant to prove that he had not committed default. This approach of the learned trial courts was wholly erroneous. In fact, it was for the landlord to have established that the tenant had committed default in payment of rent for more than six months. In view of this, I am not inclined to remand the case for fresh decision. 13. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgments and decree of the courts below are set aside and the suit of the landlord respondent is dismissed. 14. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Appeal allowed. *******