JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under section 100 CPC is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 8.3.2001 whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur while setting aside the decree dated 27.9.2000 passed a decree of eviction against the tenant-appellants. 2. Facts in brief are that the plaintiff-respondent-Shri Birdhi Chandra filed a civil suit for eviction against the original tenant-Preetam Das in July, 1992 with the averments that the tenant committed default in payment of rent from l.5.1989 and also created nuisance. In written statement, tenancy was admitted but the grounds of eviction were denied. Issues were framed. During pendency of the suit the tenant expired, hence his legal heirs were brought on record. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 27.9.2000 decided the issue of nuisance against the plaintiff but issue of default was decided in favour of the plaintiff and it was also decided that monthly rent agreed was Rs. 175/-. But the learned Munsif declined the decree of eviction on the ground that it was first default, although the defence against eviction was struck out vide earlier order dated 26.5.1995. 3. In First Appeal No. 43/2000 filed by the plaintiff-landlord, it was held that since defence against eviction was struck out vide order dated 26.5.1995 and the same was affirmed by learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, the tenants were not entitled to benefit of first default and thus decree of eviction was passed. Hence, this second appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that no default in payment of rent was committed and even after determination of the rent under section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short 'the Act'), the tenants had deposited the entire amount. According to learned counsel, rather the amount was deposited in advance but two challans submitted before the Appellate Court were not considered and thus finding of the first Appellate Court is perverse. Reliance is placed upon M/s. Laxmi Tara Calenders v. Smt. Shanti Devi Borana & Ors., 1999 WLC (Raj.) UC 175 , wherein it was held that the provisions of Section 13(5) of the Act regarding striking out defence are directory. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord contended that finding of the first Appellate Court is based on material available on the record and no law point is involved. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord contended that finding of the first Appellate Court is based on material available on the record and no law point is involved. 5. I have considered the submissions made hereinabove. Provisional rent under section 13(5) of the Act was determined on 18.1.1994 and the tenant was directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 6,683/- within 15 days and further directed to deposit monthly rent. The Appellate Court partly modified the order on 24.8.1994 and directed the tenant to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 5,789/- after adjustment of an amount of Rs. 894/- deposited by the tenant. The said amount was deposited on 21.9.1994. Thereafter, application under section 13(5) of the Act was filed on behalf of the plaintiff-landlord and the same was decided in favour of the plaintiff and thus defence against eviction was struck out vide order dated 26.5.1995 and this order was affirmed in appeal on the ground that the appeal filed by the tenant stood abated and thus the order of striking out the defence has become final. Therefore, the first Appellate Court rightly came to this conclusion that the tenants were not entitled to benefit of first default as provided in Section 13(6) of the Act and this finding is based on material available on the record and the same cannot be said to be perverse. No substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal, hence this second appeal is dismissed at admission stage.Appeal dismissed. *******