JUDGMENT 1. - The trial Court, vide order dated 31.1.2001, struck off the defence of the defendant petitioner on the ground of default in depositing the rent, as determined by the Court. The said order dated 31.1.2001, passed by the trial Court, has further been affirmed by the appellate Court vide order dated 10.9.2001. Hence the present revision petition challenging both the orders, passed by the Courts below. 2. The dispute is in regard to depositing four months rent from April, 1999 to July 1999. The petitioner had also filed an application for condonation of delay in depositing the rent, explaining the reasons for delay. 3. After having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, the defendant - petitioner has satisfactorily explained the delay in depositing the rent and no inference can be drawn that the delay was willful or deliberate on the part of the defendant petitioner. 4. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. Both the impugned orders, passed by the Courts below, are set aside and the defendant petitioner is permitted to further contest the suit in accordance with law.Revision Petition Allowed. *******