JUDGMENT The plaintiff-landlord is a retired Government servant has not been disputed during the arguments. Evidence discloses that he is living in a tenanted accommodation. The appellant did not make the deposit before the trial Court. Shri Saxena's submission that he did not do so because there was dispute on the point whether rent was Rs. 10/- as claimed by defendant-appellant or Rs. 16/- as urged by plaintiff-respondent, would have been of any consequence if appellant had complied with requirement of section 13 (1) of the Act as to admittedly monthly rent of Rs. 10/-. Even after trial Court held that monthly rent was Rs.10/- the defendant-appellant did not comply with requirement of the provisions of section 13 (1) before the first appellate Court. The request even to this Court has been made not at the earliest but at the time when the matter was taken up for arguments and on that date also no application was filed but on the next date. It is well settled that discretion under section 13 (1) of the Act should be exercised judiciously and should not be exercised in favour of recalcitrant tenant. The tenant must make out a reasonably good cause in order that discretion could be exercised in his favour Yageshwer v. Chauthmal (1983 JLJ 53);Kalyansingh v. Ramswarup ( 1982 MPWN 47 ) and Mst. Hazra Begum v. Gulam Khan (1969 MPU Note 51) relied on. To say the least the appellant has been negligent, that it would be unfair and unreasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case to interfere with the discretion of the Courts below striking out the defence of the tenant-appellant for non-compliance of section 13 (1) of the Act. The matter has already been pending for the last 10 years and if the delay is condoned and the matter remanded the suit will not terminate before the end of the century. Ratio of the decision in Subhash Mehta v. Sandhya Chaudhary ( AIR 1990 SC 1009 ) which no doubt was a case of two widows successor-landlord would support this view. Shri Saxena's prayer for condoning delay for not making deposit as required under section 13(1) of the Act and setting aside the order striking out the defence of tenant- defendant against eviction is rejected. The earlier owner Mst. Jatanbai sent registered notice to defendant Ex. P/8, its postal acknowledgment by defendant is P/9. Shri Saxena's prayer for condoning delay for not making deposit as required under section 13(1) of the Act and setting aside the order striking out the defence of tenant- defendant against eviction is rejected. The earlier owner Mst. Jatanbai sent registered notice to defendant Ex. P/8, its postal acknowledgment by defendant is P/9. The defendant in cross-examination para 3 admits receipt of this notice and his signature on the acknowledgement. He also admits his signature on Rent-note, Ex. P/7, executed in favour of earlier Land lady Jatanbai, which plaintiff Radheyshyam stated was handed over to him by vendee landlady after execution of sale-deed. The defendant did not repudiate the notice Ex. P/8 sent by Mst. Jatanbai to him and admittedly received by him. Plaintiff can rely among other things on this admission of landlady Jatanbai in Ex. P/8 not repudiated by defendant for proof of his ownership of premises. The defendant in para 5 of his deposition admits receipt of the notice Ex. P/12 sent by plaintiff and its reply from counsel is Ex. P/19. In Ex. P/19 he submitted that he was tenant of Mst. Jatanbai but added that to his knowledge there had been no valid transfer' Antaran' of the house in plaintiff's favour and for this reason the plaintiff was not entitled to receive rent from him. The reply would show that while validity of the transfer was denied for want of knowledge, the transfer itself was not denied. In Tikamchand v. Babubhai and others ( 1960 JLJ 827 ) it was held that the law does not require any attestation for the legal validity of a sale-deed nor any particular formalities are needed for execution of a sale-deed and the executant having admitted the execution, his erstwhile tenant is not entitled to contest its execution. In Sarjvan v. Mahadeo (1987 MPRCJ Note 69) the transferee landlord had obtained an exparte decree for eviction against the tenant. The tenant challenged the decree alleging that the sale-deed in favour of the defendant-landlord in the suit filed was not real and that it was a transaction of loan the Court held that tenant being stranger to the sale-deed he could not assail the document and was bound by the decree for eviction. In Karuppiah Mooppanar v. Muthukaruppan Servai ( AIR 1975 Mad. In Karuppiah Mooppanar v. Muthukaruppan Servai ( AIR 1975 Mad. 221 ) it was held that for execution of the sale-deed attestation was not necessary and the same could be proved without examining attesting witnesses. In suits of this nature, as to ownership all that a plaintiff need to prove is that he has a better title than the defendant. He has no burden to show that he has the best of all titles. Having regard to the above and the earlier owner Mst. Jatanbai having not herself come forward to repudiate the sale-deed the finding of the two Courts below that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises on the strength of the sale-deed executed by power of attorney holder of Mst. Jatanbai must be and is hereby upheld. 1983 JLJ 53, 1982 MPWN 47 , 1969 MPLJ SN 51, AIR 1990 SC 1009 , 1960 JLJ 827 and AIR 1975 Mad. 221 relied on. Appeal dismissed.