JUDGMENT This revision is by the tenant against rejection of his application for leave to defend the application for ejectment filed by the landlord on the ground of delay. The applicant is tenant of the non-applicant in respect of the suit accommodation. The non-applicant filed an application before the Rent Controlling Authority for ejectment of the applicant from the suit accommodation on the ground of need of her daughter's son, i.e., maternal grandson. It appears that summons of the application was not served on the applicant but he voluntarily appeared before the Rent Controlling Authority through his counsel and obtained a date for filing an application for leave to defend the application for ejectment. No such application was filed on the adjourned date or on the other dates given for that purpose. It was filed on 1.3.93 along with the written statement. The application for condoning the delay in filing the said application for leave to defend was filed on 15.3.93 along with an affidavit. The application for condoning the delay was rejected and accordingly the application for leave to defend was also rejected on the ground of delay. Being aggrieved, the tenant has preferred this revision. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this. revision deserves to be allowed. The learned counsel for the non-applicant submitted that in the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act no sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay in filing an application for leave to defend. In support of his contention, he supplied to the Court a photo-copy of the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act which was filed on behalf of the applicant in the Court below. In paragraph 4 of this application, it has been stated that as per requirement of S. 23-B of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, no summons was served on the tenant and that he had made voluntary appearance in the Court. Inspite of this, he made appearance in the Court through a counsel and applied for leave to defend the application for eviction, though not within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the application for eviction by his counsel. Inspite of this, he made appearance in the Court through a counsel and applied for leave to defend the application for eviction, though not within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the application for eviction by his counsel. Under the circumstances, a suggestion was made by the tenant in his said application that there was sufficient cause for the delay in making the application for leave to defend the action for eviction. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant-tenant might or might not have been right in what he contended about the legal provision in regard to service of summons and the commencement of the period of limitation for filing an application for leave to defend, I am of the view that the delay in filing the said application for leave to defend ought to have been allowed on the ground that there was basis for delay in filing the said application which might have been due to mis-construction or mis-conception of the legal provision in regard to service of summons of the application for ejectment in accordance with S. 23-B of the Act. The provision about denial of right to defend an action is very stringent in nature. The grounds for condoning the delay and the basis on which condonation was sought ought to have been held to be sufficient to condone the delay in filing the said application. Refusal to allow the application for leave to defend the action for ejectment in the present case on the ground of delay appears to be in the nature of penalty and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. In the result, this revision succeeds and it is hereby allowed. The impugned order of the Rent Controlling Authority rejecting the tenant's application for leave to defend the ejectment proceedings on the ground of delay is set aside and it is now directed to decide the application for leave to defend in accordance with law and then to proceed further with the application of the non-applicant for ejectment of the applicant from the suit accommodation. In the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs of this revision.