JUDGMENT : 1. - The trial court decreed the suit for ejectment instituted by the landlord respondents on the ground of second default in making payment of rent. After unsuccessful of first appeal, this second appeal has been preferred by the tenant appellant. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the tenant canvassed that the appeal raises substantial questions of law. The tenant neither took the statutory benefit nor committed first default. There were mutual dealings between the parties and the tenant used to adjust the rent towards the tailoring charges. The land lord had withdrawn the first suit and the order in respect of first default was erroneously drawn. Rent upto December 86 was paid and the rate of rent was Rs. 130/- per month and not Rs. 150 p.m. Statutory provisions were not properly appreciated by the courts below. Provisions contained in section 13(6) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950 (for short the Rent Act) were wrongly attracted. Reliance was placed on Jagan Nath v. Ram Kishan Dass AIR 1985 SC 265 and Deela Ram v. Jug Mandir Dass, RL.R 1992(1) 72 . 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the land lord supported the findings of the courts below and placed reliance on Heera Lal Mool Chand v. Barot Raman Lal, and M/s. Batliboi and Co. v. Govind Narain, RLW 1981 page 225 . 4. I have pondered over the rival submissions. 5. A bare look at the order dated Feb. 15, 1978 (Ex. 2) reveals that the first suit which was based only on the ground of default in making payment of rent, was dismissed after giving benefit of first default to the tenant. The order reads as under- (English translation) "Parties and their counsel present. Plaintiff expressed that the defendant has paid entire rent. The suit was based on first default therefore after giving benefit of first default the suit is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. File may be consigned to record." 6. The order reads as under- (English translation) "Parties and their counsel present. Plaintiff expressed that the defendant has paid entire rent. The suit was based on first default therefore after giving benefit of first default the suit is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. File may be consigned to record." 6. In Jagan Nath v. Ram Kishan Dass (supra) the first suit was withdrawn by the land lord for technical reasons and under those circumstances their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that the proviso to section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 could not be attracted as it was not shown that the tenant had obtained the benefit of the provisions contained in that section. Ratio of Jagan Nath v. Ram Kishan Bai is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. 7. In Deela Ram v. Jug Mandir Dass (supra) the tenant in the earlier suit had appeared in the court on the first date and the suit had been dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the landlord having received the amount of rent from the tenant did not want to proceed with the case. In Deela Ram's case benefit of first default was not given to the tenant whereas in the instant case such benefit was accorded to the tenant appellant. Therefore Deela Ram's case is also distinguishable. 8. In M/s. Batliboi & Co. v. Govind Narain (supra) it was indicated by this court that where the tenant had taken benefit of section 13(4) of the Rent Act in previous suit, proviso will operate and tenant is liable to eviction on ground of second default. 9. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the submissions advanced before me by the learned counsel appearing for the tenant appellant. I see no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts in respect of second default committed by the tenant appellant. I am satisfied that no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. 10. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.Second appeal dismissed. *******