JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order dated 29.11.1999 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 2. In the instant revision the tenant has assailed the concurrent finding of the Courts below striking out his defence against eviction a/s. 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Rent Act'). 3. The respondent-landlord filed an application on 8.2.1993 in the learned trial Court under section 13(5) of the Rent Act with the averments that rent due from 7.9.1982 to 6.10.1982 ought to have been deposited on 21.10.1982 but it was deposited by the tenant on 11.12.1982. Similarly rent due from 7.10.1982 to 6.11.1982 and from 7.12.1982 to 6.1.1983 should have been deposited on 21.11.1982 and 21.1.1983 but it was deposited on 11.12.1982 and 28.1.1983. Therefore, it was prayed that defence against eviction be struck off. 4. The petitioner-tenant in the reply submitted on 11.5.1993 stated that the rent was paid to the landlord but he did not give the receipt therefore it could not be deposited in time. The tenant also made a request to condone the delay. Facts averred in the reply by the tenant were however denied by the landlord in the rejoinder. Thereafter the tenant on 25.1.1994 moved an application under section 5 Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in depositing the rent. Learned trial Court vide - order dated 4.10.1994 refused to condone the delay in depositing the rent and passed order under section 13(5) of the Rent Act striking out defence against eviction. After unsuccessful appeal the tenant has now preferred this revision. 5. Full Bench of this Court in Sita Ram Agarzval v. Nasiruddiu, 1998 (1) WLC (Raj.) 825 by majority indicated that Court has ample power, in appropriate case, to condone delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act and permit tenant to deposit rent beyond prescribed period as fixed by the statute. 6. Thus it is to be seen as to whether the sufficient cause was shown by the tenant for excusing the delay and the discretion given to the Court to condone delay was exercised to advance substantial justice. 7. 6. Thus it is to be seen as to whether the sufficient cause was shown by the tenant for excusing the delay and the discretion given to the Court to condone delay was exercised to advance substantial justice. 7. For this purpose following facts need and be noticed:- (a) The landlord made a request for striking out the defence for the first time on 8.2.1993 in connection with the default in depositing the rent, committed by the tenant in the year 1982 and 1983. Admittedly the application was filed after 10 years without any explanation for delay. (b) Rely filed by the tenant on 11.5.1993 was supported by the affidavit of Shri Jai Narain, the brother of the tenant. Learned trial Court did not believe the affidavit of Jai Narain. (c) Application seeking condonation of delay was filed by the tenant- Ratan Lal on 25.1.1994 alongwith his affidavit, but uncontroverted affidavit of tenant-Ratanlal was not at all considered by the learned trial Court. (d) Learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the tenant mainly on the grounds that the application seeking condonation of delay was filed after 11 years and that too by Jai Narain, an alleged, sub-tenant, who was not a party in the suit and the affidavit of tenant-Ratan Lal was unreliable as it did not incorporate the verbatim contents of the application. 8. The Rent Act in Section 13 provides statutory protection to tenants, when due to default in payment of rent under section 13(1)(a), a suit for eviction of a tenant is brought against him in Court, a second opportunity to deposit rent in the Court is given under sections 13(3) & 13(4). But even then, the tenant fails to obey the orders of the Court, the protection comes to end. To penalise such unscrupulous tenants sub-sec. (5) was enacted to provide the penalty of 'striking out the defence against eviction'. Thus the object of this sub-section is to penalise the habitual defaulters and to protect the landlords from such defaulters by evicting them. 9. Although no limitation is prescribed for making prayer under section 13(5) of the Rent Act, yet a landlord is expected to make such prayer within a reasonable period. Attention of the Court should be attracted towards the default committed by the tenant, as early as possible. 9. Although no limitation is prescribed for making prayer under section 13(5) of the Rent Act, yet a landlord is expected to make such prayer within a reasonable period. Attention of the Court should be attracted towards the default committed by the tenant, as early as possible. In the instant case the application under section 13(5) of the Rent Act has been filed by the landlord after 10 years of the alleged default by the tenant and thereafter the tenant immediately moved two applications seeking condonation of delay. Jai Narain, undeniably, is the real brother of the tenant-Ratan Lal. To my mind the affidavits of Jai Narain and Ratan Lal should not have been considered in a casual manner by the Courts below. In his affidavit tenant-Ratan Lal had deposed as under:- " eSa l'kiFk c;ku djrk gwa vkSj rLnhd djrk gwa fd & 1- layXu izkFkZuk&i= dks eSaus i<+ o le> fy;k gS tks esjs }kjk gh fy[kk;k x;k gS vkSj blesa fy[ksa rF; lgh o 'kq) gSaA 2- layXu izkFkZuk&i= dks bl 'kiFk&i= dk vax ekuk tkosa vkSj 'kiFk&i= ds lkFk i<+k tkosaA " I do not see any infirmity in the affidavit of tenant-Ratan Lal. Contents of the application were read over to him and after fully understood the same, he executed the affidavit. Ratan Lal also specifically staed in the affidavit that contents of the application be treated as the part of the affidavit. Learned trial Court ignored the affidavit of Ratan Lal whereas learned appellate Court did not rely on it. The appellate Court though considered the delay of 11 years in filing the application seeking condonation of delay yet the delay of 10 years in filing the application under section 13(5) of the Rent Act by the landlord was not taken into consideration. A look at the application dated 11.5.1993 demonstrates that it was filed on behalf of Ratan Lal supported by the affidavit of Jai Narain, the brother of Ratan Lal. A look at the application dated 11.5.1993 demonstrates that it was filed on behalf of Ratan Lal supported by the affidavit of Jai Narain, the brother of Ratan Lal. In the affidavit Jai Narain stated as under:- " 1- ;g fd izfroknh&jru yky esjs HkkbZ gSA 2- ;g fd izfroknh dh vkSj ls oknh vFkok oknh ds odhy dks fdjk;k tfj;s jlhnkr eSa Lo;a vnk djrk FkkA 3- ;g fd fdjk;k fnukad 7-9-1982 ls 6-10-1982 rFkk 7-10-1982 ls 6-11-1982 rd dk izfrekg le; ij oknh dks eSaus Lo;a fdjk;k vnk djk fn;k Fkk ijUrq gj nQk oknh us ;g dgdj jlhn ugha nh fd dkih dgh xqe gks jgh gSa] feyus ij jlhn ns nh tk;sxhA " By filing aforequoted affidavits in my considered opinion, the tenant had shown sufficient cause for excusing the delay but the discretion given to the Courts below to condone delay was not judicially exercised. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ram Lal v. Rewa Coal Fields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361 indicated thus:- "In construing Section 5 it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties. In other words, when the period of limitation prescribed has expired the decree holder has obtained the benefit under the law of limitation to treat the decree as beyond challenge, and this legal right which has accrued to the decree holder by lapse of time should not be light heartedly disturbed. The other consideration which can not be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown discretion is given to the Court to condone delay and admit the appeal. This discretion has been deliberateh, conferred on the Court in order that judicial power and discretion in that behalf should be exercised to advance substantial justice." [Emphasis supplied]In the instant case as the application under section 13(5) of the Rent Act was filed after 10 years and that too without any explanation for default, the application seeking condonation of delay of the tenant should have been liberally considered by the Courts below to advance substantial justice. 10. 10. I am unable to pursuade myself to agree with the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the respondent land lord that this Court should not interfere with the concurrent finding arrived at by the Courts below. Cases Basti Chand v. Pukhraj, RLW 1998 (3) Raj. 1552 ; Ram Saran v. Nathulal, RLW 1984 p. 644 and Pukhraj v. Girdhar Narain, RLW 1995 (2) Raj. 419 cited by the learned counsel are distinguishable and not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The petitioner-tenant has successfully established that his case for condonation was not judicially considered by the Courts below and they acted with material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction vested in them. Interference therefore is necessary under section 115 CPC looking to the ratio indicated in Malojirao Narsinghrao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1969 SC 953 . 11. In view of what I have discussed hereinabove, the revision petition succeeds and is hereby allowed, impugned orders of the Courts below stand set aside and the delay in depositing the rent due from 7.9.1982 to 6.10.1982, 7.10.1982 to 6.11.1982 and 7.12.1982 to 6.1.1983 is condoned. Application of respondent-landlord filed under section 13(5) of the Rent Act shall stand set aside. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 16.10.2000 for seeking further directions. As the case is very old, the trial Court is directed to decide it as expeditiously as possible. Costs easy.Revision allowed. *******