JUDGMENT 1. 1. Prayer of the tenant appellant to condone delay in deposition rent was declined and his defence against eviction was struck out. It is against this order that the tenant appellant has preferred the instant miscellaneous appeal. 2. A few facts leading to this appeal may be stated at the outset. The plaintiff respondent (for short the land lord) instituted a civil suit against the defendant appellant (for short the tenant) for eviction under section 13(1) (a) of the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950 (for short the Rent Act) on the ground that the tenant neither tendered nor paid the rent of the shop for past more than three years and committed default in making payment of rent. The tenant filed written statement stating therein that he never committed default. the rent was regularly paid but the landlord never gave receipt of the same. The court below under section 13(3) of the Rent Act determined the provisional rent on October 30, 1999 and directed the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent for the period from June 1, 1995 to September 30, 1999 within two months and further to regularly deposit the monthly rent in the bank account of the land lord. 3. An application thereafter under section 13(5) of the Rent Act was filed by the land lord on March 18, 2000 for striking out the defence against the eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant had failed to deposit the rent from October 1999 to February 2000. The tenant in the reply averred that arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 79,326/- was deposited by him on February 7, 2000 i.e. after two months and extended period of 45 days. In the meantime whenever the tenant went to the court, he made enquiries from his counsel and other persons and was informed that default is constituted in non-payment of rent for six months. It was under this bonafide though erroneous impression that he did not make payment of the rent from October 1999 to February 2000. This mistake was noticed when he contacted his counsel for filing written statement and came to know that the rent was required to be deposited on month to month basis. Till then he was under the impression that rent could be deposited any time within six months.,On April 13, 2000 he immediately deposited Rs. This mistake was noticed when he contacted his counsel for filing written statement and came to know that the rent was required to be deposited on month to month basis. Till then he was under the impression that rent could be deposited any time within six months.,On April 13, 2000 he immediately deposited Rs. 13800/-. This non-payment of rent from October 1999 to February 2000 within the time prescribed was a bonafide lapse on his part. An application seeking condonation of delay in depositing the rent supported by the affidavit was also filed by the tenant. Landlord submitted reply to the application stating therein that in the order determining provisional rent, Bank account number of the landlord was specified. Further in the order the tenant was also directed to deposit monthly rent regularly. In view of this the reasons assigned by the tenant in the application could not be termed as bonafide. Learned court below vide order dated November 4, 2000 refused to condone the delay in depositing rent and struck out his defence against eviction. 4. I have pondered over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 5. Sub-section (4) of section 13 of the Rent Act consists of two parts, the first one is about the amount determined under sub-section (3),and the second one is month to month payment of rent during the pendency of the suit by 15th of each succeeding month. The tenant may either deposit in the court or pay to the landlord the amount of rent determined by the court within fifteen days from the date of determination. The court can extend the time and allow the tenant to deposit the said amount within extended period not extending three months. The tenant is further expected to deposit continuously month by month the monthly rent subsequent to the period upto which the determination was made, by the fifteenth of each succeeding month. The court can extend the time and allow the tenant to deposit the monthly rent within extended period not extending fifteen days. However, Full Bench of this Court in Sita Ram Agarwal v. Nasiruddin and others, (1998(1) WLC (Raj.) 325 was of the view that time specified under section 13(4) of the Rent Act can further be extended under section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, Full Bench of this Court in Sita Ram Agarwal v. Nasiruddin and others, (1998(1) WLC (Raj.) 325 was of the view that time specified under section 13(4) of the Rent Act can further be extended under section 5 of the Limitation Act. Court has ample power in appropriate case to condone delay and permit tenant to deposit rent beyond prescribed period as fixed by statute but provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act should be applied with due caution and with appropriate discretion. 6. Mr. M. Rafiq, learned counsel for the tenant canvassed that delay in depositing rent was on account of bonafide lapse and it ought to have been condoned. Reliance was placed on Karim Bux v. RSEB, (1997(1) WLC (Raj.) 713) and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 . 7. To my mind, 'delay in filing appeal' and 'delay in depositing rent' consists of two distinct fact situations. Refusing to condone delay in matter of late filing of appeal can result in a meritorious matter thrown out at the very threshold. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. The doctrine that 'every days delay must be explained' must be applied in a rational common sense. In order to do substantial justice, the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned as the other side can not claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. But if delay in depositing rent' is condoned it affects the rights of the landlord given to him under section 13(5) of the Rent Act. 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 the court, a second opportunity to deposit rent in the court is given under section 13(3) and 13(4). 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 the court, a second opportunity to deposit rent in the court is given under section 13(3) and 13(4). But even then the tenant fails to obey the orders of the court, section 13(5) comes into operation and defence against eviction of the tenant may be struck out.The objection of section 13(5) of the Rent Act is two fold:- (i) to penalise the chronic defaulters who are not ready and willing to pay the rent, and (ii) to protect the landlords from such habitual defaulters by evicting them. 8. Taking into consideration the rights of the parties which applying the rulis of limitation, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in N. Balakrishna v. M. Krishna Murti (supra) propounded in para 11 thus- "Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a life span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, never causes would sprout up necessitating never persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainity and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim 'interest reipublicae up sit finis litium' (It is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation)' (Emphasis supplied). 9. In the instant case, explanation for the delay set up by the tenant was not found satisfactory to the trial court. Untrammelled by the conclusion arrived at by the court below I have myself considered the cause shown for the delay afresh. The tenant was granted two months time to deposit arrears of rent but the tenant sought further time and arrears could be deposited in two months and 45 days. Untrammelled by the conclusion arrived at by the court below I have myself considered the cause shown for the delay afresh. The tenant was granted two months time to deposit arrears of rent but the tenant sought further time and arrears could be deposited in two months and 45 days. In the order determining provisional rent the tenant was directed to make month to month payment of rent during the pendency of the suit by 15th of each succeeding month but he failed to obey the orders of the court. I am not satisfied with the explanation of the tenant that he bonafidely believed that the rent could be deposited any time within six months and he could not read the court's order. It appears from the material on record that the order of the court below whereby the provisional rent was determined was assailed by the tenant in the High Court. The tenant who engaged counsel in the trial court as well as in the High Court, when says that he was ignorant about the trial court's order, the only reaction in such a situation would be that he is not speaking the truth. Under these circumstances the application seeking condonation of delay was rightly dismissed and the court below has not committed any illegality in striking out the defence against eviction of the tenant. 10. In view of what I have discussed hereinabove I do not find any merit In the Instant miscellaneous appeal, it is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******