Judgment J.R. Goyal, J.-This appeal is directed against the order dated 210.1996 passed by Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the defence of defendant - appellant was struck out under Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the Act of 1950) on account of the non deposition of provisional rent determined under Section 13(3) of the Act of 1950. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that against the order of determination of the provisional rent of Rs. 52,780/-appeal was preferred and, therefore, the provisional rent determined by the Court below could not be deposited. It is further contended that monthly rent is being deposited by the appellant in time. .4. Learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the provisional rent of Rs. 52,780/-was determined by the Court below with the direction that the said amount shall be deposited by the tenant defendant within a period of one month and thereafter from April 1993 onwards the rent shall be payable by 15th day of every succeeding month, but Rs. 52,780/-has not been deposited by the appellant and, therefore, the Court below was right in striking out the defence of the appellant against eviction. 5. I have considered the rival submission of the parties. 6. It is not disputed that in a case for rent and eviction, filed under the provisions of the Act of 1950, the learned Court below had determined the provisional rent of Rs. 52,780/-on 26.04.1993 with the direction that the provisional rent shall be paid within a period of one month. It is also not disputed that the appellant did not deposit the provisional rent of Rs. 52,780/-. 7. In Nasiruddin & Ors. vs. Sita Ram Agarwal, 2003 (2) Supreme 50 , Honble the Apex Court has held that the provisions of Sections 13(4) and 13(5) of the Act of 1950 are mandatory in nature. It was also held that in absence, where the statute does not provide either for extension of time or to condone the default in depositing the rent within the stipulated period, the Court does not have the power to do so. It was also held that in absence, where the statute does not provide either for extension of time or to condone the default in depositing the rent within the stipulated period, the Court does not have the power to do so. Meaning thereby, if the provisional rent has been determined under Section 13(3) of the Act of 1950 then it is obligatory on the part of the defendant to deposit the same as per the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Act of 1950 and in case of default the only consequence is of striking out the defence of eviction of the defendant. In this view of the matter, I find no infirmity with the impugned order and accordingly the appeal is hereby dismissed.