Honble JAIN, J. — This is plaintiffs revision directed against the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Bikaner dated 21.9.1991 whereby he has set aside the order of the learned Munsif, Bikaner dated 9.2.1990 striking out the defence. (2). Briefly stated the facts of the case are that petitioner- plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of rent for three years and also sought ejectment on the grounds of defaults necessity and material alteration on 17.5.1985. The defendant contested the suit. Rent was determined on 31.7.1987 at the rate of Rs.60/-per month and the defendant was ordered to deposit Rs.3300/- within a month and further directed the defendant to pay rent month by month by the fifteenth of each succeeding month. It is alleged that the defendant defaulted in payment of rent on several occasion, so an application under Sec. 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 was filed on 5.7.1989. Reply was filed on 14.9.1989 stating that he is not defaulter. Vide order dated 9.2.1990 the learned Additional Munsif No.l, Bikaner ordered to strike out the defence. Aggrieved defendant-non-petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Bikaner. The appeal so preferred was accepted by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Bikaner vide judgment dated 21.9.1991. Hence, this revision. (3). This revision is pending since 31.12.1991. It has come up before me and as agreed by the counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally. (4). Mr.Maloo, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Additional Civil Judge has erred in reversing the order of the trial court as the defendant was defaulter in payment of rent. (5). Mr. Purohit learned counsel for the non-petitioner has submitted that the learned Additional Civil Judge after considering the fact that the due rent has already been deposited has rightly exercised the discretion in favour of the defendant condoning the delay. He has relied on Ramlal & Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (1) and Miss Santosh Mehta Vs. Om Prakash (2). (6). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as well as the relevant provisions of law. (7). He has relied on Ramlal & Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (1) and Miss Santosh Mehta Vs. Om Prakash (2). (6). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as well as the relevant provisions of law. (7). Undoubtedly a landlord is entitled to get rent after the determination of rent and thereafter monthly rent in time in view of sub-Sections(3), (4) and (5) of the Section 13 of the Act and in case tenant makes any default or any breach in the condition of monthly rent then certainly landlord get a right of striking out the defence of the tenant. (8). In the instant case, the tenant is a habitual defaulter and he has not deposited monthly rent as and when became due. He has deposited monthly rent with a gap of 2 months, 3 months and even six months, which has not been disputed. This goes to show that this is a case where the tenant has deposited rent with the delay not only once or twice, but he has deposited monthly rent very irregularly. No doubt The Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 is a beneficial legislation, but at the same time its provision must be complied with as intended by the legislature by using certain words which are clear and in unambiguous terms. The Appellate Court has noted at page 6 of its judgement that the tenant has deposited the rent of June, 1988 to November,1988 in the month of December,1988. It was the appellants duty to satisfy the court that he has deposited monthly rent in time as ordered by the court below. Furthermore, the delay in depositing the rent has also not been explained. The order of the trial court has been reversed without there being an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. (9). In Manju Choudhary vs. Daulal Kumar Chandra (3), their lordships of the Supreme Court while interpreting Section 13 of the Bihar(Building) Rent and Eviction) Ordinance, 1982 which is similar to Section 13(5) of the Act, has held that there is a duty cast on the court to strike out the defence if there is a failure of the tenant to deposit monthly rent within 15 days. In that case there was a delay of only five days but still the defence of the defendant was struck out, and maintained the orders of the courts below. (10). Reference may also be made to a decision of the Honble Supreme Court rendered in Module India Vs. Kamakshya Singh (4) and decisions of this Court rendered in Panji @ Panna Ram Vs. Bhag Chand (S.B.C.Revision Petition No.552/91) decided on 01.11.1991 and Inder Chand Vs.Smt. Lilawati (5). Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the learned appellate court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in setting aside the order passed by the trial court. (10). Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that this court in Vishan Das Vs. Savitri Devi (6) after relying on decision in Gopal Dass & Ors. Vs. Nathulal Barya (7) has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable and the Court can condone the delay considering the sufficient cause but the counsel submits that the same has been referred to a larger Bench in Sita Ram Vs. Nasiruddin(S.B.Civil Revision Petition No.570/94) decided on 03.6.1994 considering that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is only applicable when an appeal or application other than application under order XXI of Civil Procedure Code is filed beyond the time prescribed for the same. It has also been observed in said Sita Rams case that for depositing the rent determined by the court or monthly rent, neither any application is required to be filed nor any period is fixed for filing such an application. Mr.Purohit submits that following said decision of Sita Rams case, this case may also be referred to a larger Bench of five Judges. Since, in this case application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act has not been filed by the defendant-non-petitioner and as observed above, it is not necessary for me to refer this case. (11). Under the facts and circumstances of given case, the delay in payment of rent by the tenant does not deserve sympathy and the condonation granted by the appellate court was without applying its mind and material on record. The cases cited by counsel for the non-petitioner defendant are not applicable to the facts of present case. In view of this, the revision deserves to be accepted and the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court is liable to be set aside. (12). The cases cited by counsel for the non-petitioner defendant are not applicable to the facts of present case. In view of this, the revision deserves to be accepted and the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court is liable to be set aside. (12). Accordingly, this revision is allowed. The order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Bikaner on 21.9.1991 is set aside and the order dated 9.2.1990 passed by the learned Munsif, Bikaner is restored. Cost is made easy. Record of the case be sent back immediately.