JUDGMENT 1. - There was an order of provisional determination of rent and under that order the arrears were to be paid by a certain date and thereafter, every month rent was payable. The tenant deposited Rs. 10,200/- towards rent on 6th February, 1987 and there was short fall of Rs. 80/-. The delay in deposit of Rs. 80/- has been condoned and that is not a matter for consideration in this revision. 2. For the months of March to June, rent was paid to the landlord through his counsel and in this revision, I am concerned with the default committed for the rent due for the month of July, 1987. 3. The case of the tenant is that on 18th August, 1987 Rs. 200/- were given to his counsel towards the July 1987 rent, but the counsel forgot to deposit in court or to give it to the counsel for the landlord, for such default he should not be penalised and the delay should have been condoned. 4. Both the courts below took several factors on the record into consideration and declined to condone the delay and struck off tenant's defence by order dated 30th January, 1991. This is tenant's revision. 5. Counsel for the tenant has cited Miss Santosh Mehta v. Om Prakash, 1980(2) RCR 516 : 1980(1) RCJ 697, a Supreme Court's decision wherein the delay on the part of the counsel was condoned. It was held that unless there was wilful and deliberate default, the delay should be condoned as non-condonation of delay would result in serious consequence of striking off of the defence of the tenant. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid decision, there would have been no problem for me in condoning the delay of three days as according to the tenant's affidavit he gave the amount to his counsel on 18th August, 1987 and for the month of July 1987 the amount had to be paid by 15th of August, 1987. It is the case of the tenant that counsel failed to deposit the amount soon after 19th August. The counsel's affidavit is on record. He admits that he got the amount on 18th August but stated that he was under the impression that he had deposited the amount and when it was brought to his notice that it was not deposited he deposited the amount. 7. The counsel's affidavit is on record. He admits that he got the amount on 18th August but stated that he was under the impression that he had deposited the amount and when it was brought to his notice that it was not deposited he deposited the amount. 7. There are some important facts to be noticed which may show either the party or his counsel committed wilful and deliberate default in making the deposit. On 14th Sept. 1987, the landlord filed an application clearly stating therein that rent for the month of July has not been paid nor deposited and, therefore, the defence of the tenant be struck off. That application was received by the counsel for the tenant on 14th Sept., 1987. Record is before me and it shows that the counsel for the tenant had received the copy of that application on that very day, reference may be made to page B22/1 to B22/4, therefore, Sept. 1987 it became clear to the counsel for the tenant that despite the fact that he had not received the amount on 19th August, 1987, he had not deposited the amount by 14th Sept. 1987 and he should have taken immediate steps either to pay to the landlord or his counsel and if they refuse to receive it, to deposit in Court. Instead of doing that, application for deposit was filed as late as 6th November, 1987 and after court gave the permission, the amount was deposited. 8. In view of the Supreme Court decision, I am prepared to condone the delay from 15th August, 1987 to 14th Sept. 1987 but from 14th Sept. 1987 till 6th Nov. 1987 there is no justifiable reason to condone the delay, that is why, I agree with the courts below that there was wilful and deliberate default on the part of the tenant or his counsel and it was not a simple case of forgetfulness of the counsel for the period from 14th Sept. till 6th Nov. 1987. The amount was actually deposited on 15th January, 1988 but under the procedure law of the State of Rajasthan the deposit is permissible only when court gives an order for deposit and on the application dated 6th Nov. 1987, the permission was given late and therefore, the deposit was also late. The delay between 6.1.1987, and 15.1.1988 is, therefore, not material. 9. 1987, the permission was given late and therefore, the deposit was also late. The delay between 6.1.1987, and 15.1.1988 is, therefore, not material. 9. For the reasons recorded above, I decline to interfere with the orders of Courts below and dismiss the revision. Record of the case be sent to the trial court forthwith. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 5th December, 1994. *******