JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been preferred against the order of learned Additional District Judge, Rajgarh dated 2.5.1997 by which he confirmed the order of learned Civil Judge (JD) Rajgarh dated 1.10.1996. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length. 3. Plaintiff Radheyshyam filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction against defendants petitioners on the ground of reasonable bonafide necessity and default in payment of rent. It was averred in the plaint that the disputed shop was given on rent of Rs. 62/- per month to the defendants. Since the suit was based on the ground of default, the trial court vide order dated 27.10.1987 determined interim rent under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction), Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') for the period from 1.5.85 to 30.9.87 at the rate of Rs. 62/- per month totalling to Rs. 1798/- and interest Rs. 131.95, in all Rs. 1929.95. An application was moved under Section 13(5) of the Act by the plaintiff on 21.7.92 that the rent was not deposited by the defendants as such their defence against eviction was liable to be struck off. It was contested by the defendants and it was replied that the rent for 92 months was deposited and no default was committed. The defendants also filed an application under Sections 151 and 152 CPC with the prayer that the rent deposited by the tenant for the years 1988, 1989 and 1990 may be adjusted as the same is lying in excess. Prior to it the defendants had already moved an application for adjustment of the excess of the rent on 26.11.87 but the same was dismissed as not pressed on 1.12.89. The trial court after hearing arguments by order dated 1.10.96 ordered striking out of the defence of the tenants. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was preferred before the learned Additional District Judge who vide impugned order rejected the appeal and confirmed the order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners tenants submitted that the orders of both the courts below striking the defence were arbitrary, against the facts and contrary to the law. It has been submitted that the petitioners tenants had deposited Rs. 744/- on 26.2.86, Rs. 744/- on 4.9.86 and Rs. 744/- on 14.12.87 under Section 19-A of the Act and this amount were lying in deposit with the court. It has been submitted that the petitioners tenants had deposited Rs. 744/- on 26.2.86, Rs. 744/- on 4.9.86 and Rs. 744/- on 14.12.87 under Section 19-A of the Act and this amount were lying in deposit with the court. The amount deposited by the defendants was in excess and if adjusted towards the arrears of rent then they cannot be said to have made any default in payment of monthly rent for the years subsequent to the date of determination of interim rent. It has been submitted that it is the duty of the trial court to make adjustment of the rent lying in deposit or in excess with the court before passing an order of determination and even if it was not brought to the notice of the court at that time, it should have been adjusted when it was brought to the notice of the court on 26.11.87. It has been submitted that striking out of defence is discretionary and order can be passed only when there is a wilful default. It has been submitted that in this case there was no wilful default at all and the courts below have wrongly dismissed the application on the ground that on earlier occasion application under Section 19-A of the Act was dismissed as not pressed. The rent deposited has not been withdrawn by the tenants and secondly the deposit made by the tenants under Section 19-A of the Act may be valid or invalid, its validity cannot be taken into consideration at the time of giving adjustment of rent at interim stage. The validity of the deposits can be seen at the time of final hearing of the suit and if the deposit is found to be valid the petitioners would not be entitled to take benefit of the provisions contained under Sections 13(3), 13(4) and 13(5) of the Act. It has been further submitted that the first appellate court has committed error of law and jurisdiction in holding that the application for adjustment made by the tenants under Section 151 CPC is liable to be challenged in revision and not in appeal and as such the appeal was not maintainable. It has been further submitted that the first appellate court has committed error of law and jurisdiction in holding that the application for adjustment made by the tenants under Section 151 CPC is liable to be challenged in revision and not in appeal and as such the appeal was not maintainable. It has been submitted that there was no requirement to make an application in writing by the petitioners for adjustment of the rent already lying in excess in deposit or if the provisions of Section 151 CPC were wrongly mentioned in the application it would not make any difference while taking into consideration the subject matter contained therein. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents landlord has submitted that the learned Appellate Judge has not committed any error of jurisdiction and that since the earlier application was dismissed the second application was barred. It has been submitted that no infirmity is found in the order of the learned Appellate Judge. On merits, it has been submitted that the tenant has himself to seek adjustment if he had deposited some amount. It has also been submitted that for the alleged deposit dated 4.12.87 there is no receipt and that the order of the learned Additional District Judge should not be set-aside. 6. So far as the question of filing of appeal or revision against an order under Section 151 is concerned, it is settled law that if an order under Section 151 CPC is passed the same can be challenged only in a revision and not in an appeal. 7. It is also settled law that striking out of defence is not mandatory and defence can be struck out when the default is wilful and contumacious. But here in this case the circumstances are a bit different. 8. It was submitted on behalf of the tenants that the suit was not based on the ground of default, therefore, the interim rent could not have been determined. Such an argument was also raised before the court below but it was found that the plaintiff had-pleaded in para No. 4 that the rent with effect from 1.5.85 was in arrears and the defendant had made dafult, therefore, it was necessary for the trial court to determine the interim rent. Such an argument was also raised before the court below but it was found that the plaintiff had-pleaded in para No. 4 that the rent with effect from 1.5.85 was in arrears and the defendant had made dafult, therefore, it was necessary for the trial court to determine the interim rent. It is also on record that on earlier occasion an application was submitted by the tenants on 26.11.97 for adjustment of the amount allegedly deposited. The same was not pressed on 1.12.89 and was dismissed. It has been contended that since the earlier application was withdrawn second application was barred. It has also been submitted on behalf of the landlord that there is no receipt with regard to the rent allegedly deposited on 14.12.87 and the courts below have rightly held that the tenants are defaulters. 9. I find that when the order about determination of rent was passed on 27.10.87 no prayer was made to adjust the rent. Section 19-A of the Act provides that when the rent is deposited under the said Section the deposit shall be accompanied by an application by the tenant containing particulars as mentioned in sub-section (5) and the application shall bear a court fee stamp of Rs. 21- and shall be accompanied by requisite postal stamps for sending the notice and a copy of application under sub-section (7). No such compliance appears to have been made in the case in hand and as such it cannot be said to be a valid deposit. Consequently, it was not adjusted and could not be adjusted. Secondly, there is no receipt for the amount as alleged to have been deposited on 14.12.87. As stated above the tenant had submitted an application on 26.11.87 that an amount of Rs. 1929.95 was deposited earlier which may be adjusted and the rent may be redetermined and time may be extended to deposit the balance. This application was dismissed on 1.12.89, therefore, the second application was barred. I agree with the learned appellate Judge that there was no provision under Section 151 CPC to submit this fresh application. 10. Consequenlty, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the order of learned Additional District Judge. Reference may be made to 1995 DNJ (Raj.) page 21, Phool Chand v. RSRTC & Ors. I agree with the learned appellate Judge that there was no provision under Section 151 CPC to submit this fresh application. 10. Consequenlty, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the order of learned Additional District Judge. Reference may be made to 1995 DNJ (Raj.) page 21, Phool Chand v. RSRTC & Ors. and Pandurang Dhondi Chougule and others v. Maruti Hari Jadhav and Others, AIR 1966 SC page 153 , wherein it was held that a revision petition can be filed only when there is jurisdictional error. There appears to be no jurisdictional error. Hence there is no force in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No roder as to costs.Revision Dismissed. *******