JUDGMENT This is the defendant's petition against the order passed by the learned trial Court thereby the Court below has refused to condone the default of the petitioner-defendants in depositing the due rent and the rent month to month despite the directions of the Court. Consequent to which, their defence was struck out. In the suit filed by the non-petitioner-plaintiff on the grounds of 12 (1) (a) (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short the Act) the petitioners had raised the dispute under section 13 of the Act which came to be decided by the trial Court and the tenants-petitioners were directed to deposit the claimed rent of three years as the remaining rent had become time-barred and was not claimed by the plaintiff, within two months from 6.7.92. When the period was to expire, an application was filed by the petitioners-defendant that they were not financially well and could not deposit the due rent as also the monthly rent within the period allowed by the Court and further extension was sought. The petitioners were further allowed a period of 10 days, but they failed to deposit the amount within the period of two months and even during the extended period. However, the rent only for a period of 4 months was deposited by them later. The learned trial Court had directed on 4.8.93 that if the total due rent was not deposited within a period of ten days, their right of defence shall be struck out. The defendants did not deposit the rent and made a further application on 11.10.93 under section 151 C.P.C. contending that the financial position not being sound they could not deposit the rent and further extention be allowed. This application was decided by the trial Court after more than a month on 18.11.93. While dismissing the application, seven days further time was allowed to the defendants but still the rent was not deposited. However, later the receipts were produced before the trial Court which showed that the rent was deposited on 26.6.95. When the trial Court had passed the order on 18.11.93 allowing seven days' time to the petitioners for depositing the due rent, it was made clear that if the rent was not deposited during that period, the petitioners' right to defend shall be taken to be closed. When the trial Court had passed the order on 18.11.93 allowing seven days' time to the petitioners for depositing the due rent, it was made clear that if the rent was not deposited during that period, the petitioners' right to defend shall be taken to be closed. For the default of the petitioners in depositing the rent, the learned trial Court found that their right stood closed after the expiry of 7 days' period from 18.11.93 and in the facts and circumstances, the learned trial Court found that the petitioners' default in depositing the due rent could not be condoned. While dismissing the applications of the petitioners for condoning the delay, a cost of Rs. 25/- was also imposed by the trial Court. In the above facts and circumstances, when more than one opportunity was allowed to the petitioners and the time was sought by the petitioners for depositing the due rent on the ground that their financial position was not sound, their later defence that they had acted under the legal advice of their counsel engaged earlier, is not desirable. The petitioners have been seeking time for depositing the due rent, showing their liability in making such deposit. The action of their depositing four months' rent exposes the falsity of their defence. When from the conduct of tenant, it is found that he has been a regular defaulter for many years and even the rent had gone time barred and further when the suit was filed despite the orders of the Court, if the rent was not deposited, the discretion for condoning the default cannot be exercised in his favour. Shri Bhardwaj has placed implicit reliance on the authority of Apex Court in Shyam Charan Sharma v. Dharmdas (1980 JLJ 280) to contend that it is within the discretion of the Court to condon the delay. It was found by the Apex Court that if the arrears of rent were deposited by the tenant within time allowed by the Court, the tenant would be protected under section 12 (3) of the Act and thereafter a further default was committed in depositing the monthly rent that may also be condoned by the Court. It was found by the Apex Court that if the arrears of rent were deposited by the tenant within time allowed by the Court, the tenant would be protected under section 12 (3) of the Act and thereafter a further default was committed in depositing the monthly rent that may also be condoned by the Court. But if a tenant failed to deposit the arrears of rent as also the monthly rent, despite the time being allowed by the Court on more than one occasion, he shall be deemed to be a wilful defaulter and the delay would be mala fide, which would not deserve condonation. The rent laws have been enacted for the protection of the tenants but at the same time cannot be permitted to be utilised for harassing the landlords. The above authority cited, therefore, does not help the petitioners, but rather goes against them. In view of the repeated defaults in making the deposit after many opportunities were allowed by the trial Court, the authority of Gurbachan Singh v. Bimla Bai ( AIR 1993 MP 135 ) is also of no avail. In this view, I have found no merit in this revision, it is, therefore, dismissed.