Honble SHARMA, J.–``Striking out defence of a tenant is harsh extreme and having regard to the benign scheme of the legislation. This drastic power is meant for use in grossly recalcitrant situations where a tenant in guilty of disregard in payment of rent. Striking out a partys defence is an exceptional step, not a routine visitation of a punitive extreme following upon mere failure to pay rent. The Apex Court of the country issued these directions in Miss Santosh Mehta vs. Om Prakash (1). It is in the light of these directions, that 1 proceed to decide the instant appeal. (2). This appeal arises from the order dated April 17, 1996 of the learned Additional District Judge No.3 Jaipur City whereby the defence against eviction of the defendant appellant (for short defendant) was ordered to be struck off. (3). Broadly the facts are admitted by the parties. In a suit for rent and ejectment instituted by the plaintiff respondent (for short the plaintiff) provisional rent was determined by the trial court. An application was moved by the plaintiff stating that the rent for the months of March, April and May 1993 and May 1994 was deposited late, therefore the defence against eviction of the defendant be struck off. The defendant submitted reply to the effect that rent for the month of March 1993, April 93 and May 93 was deposited respectively on April 13, 1993, May 4, 1993 and June 3, 1993 in the bank account of plaintiff bearing No. 4053. By mistake of the defendants employee the cheques were deposited in Bajaj Nagar Branch of State Bank of India instead of Tonk Road Branch. The account No. 4053 was mentioned in the slips and cheques were accepted by the Bank debiting to the account in routine manner. However when mistake became known the amount was got transferred from Bajaj Nagar Branch to Tonk Road Branch in the plaintiffs account No. 4053 on July 9, 1993. Similarly the rent of May 1994 was deposited on June 1, 1994 in the Tonk Road Branch but inadvertently the plaintiffs account number could not be mentioned in the slip therefore the amount was not credited in the plaintiffs account despite the fact that plaintiffs name was mentioned. This amount kept by the bank in the suspense account. Similarly the rent of May 1994 was deposited on June 1, 1994 in the Tonk Road Branch but inadvertently the plaintiffs account number could not be mentioned in the slip therefore the amount was not credited in the plaintiffs account despite the fact that plaintiffs name was mentioned. This amount kept by the bank in the suspense account. When this fact came in the knowledge the amount was got transferred in the plaintiffs account number 4053 on July 1, 1994. It was also mentioned by the defendant that while depositing the amount determined under Section 13(3) of the Act the defendant had deposited two months rent in advance in excess of the amount determined by the court. Therefore in any case there could been no default. In the alternative the defendant requested that the delay in depositing the rent was due to mistake and was bona- fide therefore the same deserve to be condoned. An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act duly supported by the affidavit was also filed. (4). The learned trial court allowed the application of the plaintiff and while rejecting the prayer of the defendant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the defence against eviction was ordered to be struck off. (5). I have heard the rival contentions and carefully perused the impugned order. (6). Kamla Devi vs. Shri Vasudev (2) was the case when their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded that the power to strike out the defence against is discretionary and must not be mechanically exercised without any application of mind to the facts of the case. (7). In Smt. Sarupi vs. Har Gian (3), it was held that if money deposited by mistake in court near the proper court and accepted, the depositor should not be penalised. (8). The learned court below in my view took harsh view in striking out the defence of the defendant. Looking to the facts of the case it cannot be inferred that the defendant was guilty of disregard in payment of rent. The situation was also not grossly recalcitrant. The defendant properly explained the cause of delay in depositing the rent. The tenant cannot be penalised in such a situation where two months rent was deposited by her in addition to what was provisionally determined by the trial court. The situation was also not grossly recalcitrant. The defendant properly explained the cause of delay in depositing the rent. The tenant cannot be penalised in such a situation where two months rent was deposited by her in addition to what was provisionally determined by the trial court. The application moved by the defendant under section 5 of the Limitation Act deserves to be allowed. (9). Consequently, 1 allow the appeal and set-aside the impugned order. The application under Section 13(5) of the Act submitted by the plaintiff stands rejected. Costs easy.