Honble JAIN, J. – The defendant-petitioner has filed this revision against the order dated 29/9/95 passed by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge No.3, Jodhpur by which he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order of the trial court dated 11.8.95 by which the defence of the petitioner-defendant against default was struck out. (2). The petitioner is a defendant tenant against whom the non-petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and arriors of rent. The Court in that suit determined the rent under Sub-section (3) of Sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act on 21/7/92. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved an application under sub-section (5) of Sec. 13 of the Act alleging that the defendant-petitioner has com- mitted several defaults in payment of rent in purshance of the order passed by this Court on 21/7/92. He, therefore, prayed that the defence of the defendant be struck out against eviction. The plaintiff filed a detailed chart showing the defaults committed by the defendant-petitioner. The learned trial Court has given details of the defaults committed by the defendant in payment of rent at page 2 of its order. The defendant petitioner submitted that since the tenancy was in accordance with the Gregorian calendar the plaintiff deposited rent in accordance with the above. The learned trial court held tht the defendant-petitioner committed defaults and the defendant could not produce any evidence to the contrary. According to the trial court, the defendant committed not less than 22 defaults. He, therefore, allowed the application and ordered that the defence of the defendant-petitioner be struck out against the eviction in terms of Sub-section (5) of Sec. 13 of the Act. (3). The defendant-petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Addl. Distt. Judge No. 3, Jodhpur challenging the above order but without any success. The defendant has, therefore, filed this revision petition. (4). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the non-petitioner. (5). Leanred counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was wrong on the part of the learned trial court to have concluded that the defendant-petitioner committed any defaults. According to the learned counsel the tenancy was not in accordance with Hindi Miti. The defendant, therefore, deposited rent according to Gregorian calendar. If this contention of the petitioner-defendant accepted, there is no default. According to the learned counsel the tenancy was not in accordance with Hindi Miti. The defendant, therefore, deposited rent according to Gregorian calendar. If this contention of the petitioner-defendant accepted, there is no default. He further submitted that it is not obligatory for the Court to strike out the defence of the defendant-petitioner. It is directory and in the present case the learned trial court ought not to have passed the above order. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Firm Mohanlal vs. Rajkumar and Ors. (1), Smt. Sharwan Devi vs. Kailashchand (2), Sri Ram vs. Hua Bai (3), Vishabh Das vs. Savitri Devi (4), Chhagan Lal vs. Ram Baby (5) and Chetan Das vs. Ansuiya (6). (6). Learned counsel has supported the orders of the courts below and submitted that it has been proved satisfactorily that the petitioner-defendant committed defaults. The petitioner did not file any application under Sec. 5, Limitation Act and did not plead for condoning the delay. (7). I have considered the rival contentions. Factually, there is no dispute that the petitioner defendant committed defaults in payment of rent in accordance with the above order of the court determining the rent. Though the order striking out defence is not mendatory for the court to pass but the court can only condone the delay when a prayer to this effect is made. In the instant case the petitoner defendant has not even prayed for condonation of delay in the payment of rent. Hence, the order passed by the trial court was correctly upheld by the learned trial court. (8). I find no force in the petition and it is hereby dismissed.