JUDGMENT 1. - The defendant-petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 1-11-1994 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhilwara affirming the order dated 3-5-1994 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1 regarding striking out of the defence of the petitioner under Section 13 (5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, (No. XVII of 1950). 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the case. 3. The defendant-petitioner is the tenant of the plaintiff-non-petitioners. The plaintiff-non-petitioners filed a suit for eviction against the defendant-petitioner for ejectment and arrears of rent entirely on the ground of default allegedly committed by the defendant-petitioner. At the appropriate stage, the learned trial court determined the rent under Section 13(3) of the Act on 5-5-1988. There is no dispute that the defendant-petitioner deposited the rent within the extended time allowed by the court. The defendant-petitioner further deposited the rent for two months i.e. for May and June 1988 on 26-5-1988. However, the plaintiff-non-petitioners moved two applications purporting to be under Section 13(5) of the Act for striking out the defence of the defendant-petitioner in the aforesaid suit on his failure to comply with the order passed by the Court under Section 13(3) of the Act on 5-5-1988. The first application is dated 26-10-1989 and the second is dated 2-9-1993. In the first application, the plaintiff-non-petitioners alleged that the defendant-petitioner did not deposit the rent for the months of April, May and June 1988 whereas in the second application, allegation was made that the defendant-petitioner committed default in payment of rent for the month of July 1993. The defendant-petitioner contested the applications and prayed that as regards for the month of April 1988, he deposited the rent along with the rent as determined by the court on 5-5-1988. The rent for the remaining two months i.e. May and June 1988 was deposited on 26-5-1988. Regarding the default in payment of rent for the month of July 1993, the defendant-petitioner submitted that on account of severe illness, he was prevented from moving out and he had to discontinue his business as well There was, therefore, reasonable explanation for his failure to deposit the rent. He further submitted that he has been depositing the rent regularly for so many years. 4. He further submitted that he has been depositing the rent regularly for so many years. 4. Both the courts below found that the defendant-petitioner committed defaults and that the defendant petitioner is not entitled for the condonation of the defaults committed by him in payment of rent as the petitioner could have deputed someone to go and deposit the rent on his behalf. 5. Now, it is the settled law that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be invoked for seeking condonation of delay in depositing the rent as determined or ordered by the court. The Court has power, in the interest of justice and equity to extend the time beyond the period prescribed under Section 13 (4) of the Act. It well settled proposition of law that the provisions of Section 13(5) of the Act are directory in nature and not mandatory. 6. The most important question that calls for determination in this case is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Courts below erred in not condoning the delay as payed by the defendant-tenant. 7. This Court in Roopnarain v. Murti Mandir Sitaramji, 1987 (2) RLR 451 held that in the matter of default in the payment of rent, the Carts should extend time very liberally. However in cases where the courts find that the tenant has committed defaults regularly or frequently, the Court will be justified in not Wending the time and condoning the delay. In the instant case, the only actionable default respect of the month of July 1993. As yards the fate of the first application moved by the landlord-plaintiff complaining defaults In payment of rent for the months of April, May and June 1988, it is on record that the petitioner-tenant did not commit any default inasmuch as he deposited the rent for the month of April 11988 along with the arrears of rent as (determined by the court on 5-5-1988 and (thereafter, he deposited the rent in respect of the remaining two months on 26-5-1988. There (was a slight delay in deposit of rent for the (month of July 1993 and the explanation of the defendant-petitioner was that he was severely and bad to discontinue his business and for this reason, he could not manage to deposit the rent for this month. 8. There (was a slight delay in deposit of rent for the (month of July 1993 and the explanation of the defendant-petitioner was that he was severely and bad to discontinue his business and for this reason, he could not manage to deposit the rent for this month. 8. In this connection, I may refer to a similar case of Madanlal v. Ramadevi, 1986 (2) WLN 352 (Raj) . In that case, the tenant committed default in respect of the payment of rent for the month of April 1977 during the period of eight years. Here also, in about five years period, the tenant has committed a single default in the payment of rent for the month of July 1993. The tenant has also given explanation tor the default and looking to the conduct of the tenant-petitioner, during all these years. I see no reason to disbelieve his version. Hence, the courts below acted illegally or at least with material irregularity in not exercising the discretion vested in them in favour of the defendant-tenant in condoning the delay in the facts and circumstances of this case. 9. I, therefore, allow this revision petition, set aside the Order dated 1-11-1994 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bhilwara and the order dated 3-5-1994 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Bhilwara and dismiss the two applications filed by the plaintiff-non-petitioners under Section 13(5), of the Act on 26-10-1989 and 2-9-1993. The parties are left to bear their own costs of this revision petition.Petition allowed. *******