Judgment Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-The defendant-tenant has filed this second appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 19.1987 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 1 Hanumangarh camp Sangria in Civil Appeal No. 16/1983 whereby the learned Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and maintained the decree for eviction dated 19.5.1983 passed by the Munsif , Sangria in Civil Suit No. 23/1980. .2. This appeal was admitted on 12.1987 while formulating the following as substantial questions of law involved in this appeal:- .(1) Whether the learned trial Court has committed error in striking out the entire defence of the defendant appellant for not depositing the rent of the subsequent month of March, 1981? .(2) Whether the findings of the learned lower Courts on the reasonable and bona fide necessity are perverse? .(3) Whether the findings of the learned lower Court are not in accordance with the provisions of Section 14(2), Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950? .(4) Whether the learned lower Courts erred in holding that the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 13 are mandatory in nature? 3. The Questions No. 1 and 4 aforesaid relate to the aspect of striking out of defence of the defendant-appellant whereas Question No. 2 relates to the finding on the ground of eviction of reasonable and bona fide requirement while Question No. 3 relates to the consideration of comparative hardship and partial eviction. 4. Brief facts relating to the suit and the proceedings in the suit could be summarised thus : The plaintiffs-respondents filed the suit for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits with the averments in the plaint that in Ward No. 2 of Sangria, shops of plaintiff No. 1 were situated which were looked after by "Panchayati Mandir Prabandhak Samiti" of which plaintiff No. 2 was the Chairman. From out of these shops the defendant has taken on rent the shop No. 8 from 2.1975 at the rent of Rs. 80/-per month and thereafter the defendant took the shop for a fixed period of 7.1978 to 33.1979 at the rent of Rs. 85/-per month and executed the rent note to that effect. Eviction was claimed on the grounds that : (a) the defendant has paid rent of 20½ months upto 110.1976 amounting to Rs. 80/-per month and thereafter the defendant took the shop for a fixed period of 7.1978 to 33.1979 at the rent of Rs. 85/-per month and executed the rent note to that effect. Eviction was claimed on the grounds that : (a) the defendant has paid rent of 20½ months upto 110.1976 amounting to Rs. 1,640/-on 19.7.1978 under receipt but the defendant has neither tendered nor paid the rent from 110.1976 to 30.6.1978 at the rate of Rs. 80/-per month and from 7.1978 at the rate of Rs. 85/-per month and hence the defendant has violated the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act); (b) apart from the aforesaid ground of default, the plaintiff further averred that in the building, a school for imparting Sanskrit education was running upto "Praveshika" standard but the school was not having complete accommodation and now as the level of education was being raised to a college, the accommodation for that purpose was insufficient and to meet with the requirement of accommodation, the shop in question was required reasonably and bona fide. Two shops of the plaintiffs have already been got vacated for the said purpose and legal proceedings were on way for obtaining eviction regarding other shops. The plaintiffs also suggested comparative hardship by alleging that they were not having any other place to start Sanskrit College nor any proper place was available in Mandi Sangria. Making other averments regarding service of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiffs claimed the rent from 110.1976 to 30.6.1978 at the rate of Rs. 80/-per month amounting to Rs. 1,640/-and from 7.1978 to 33.1979 at the rate of Rs. 85/-per month amounting to Rs. 675/-per month and mesne profits from 4.1979 to 30.9.1979 of Rs. 510/-. The plaintiffs prayed for a decree for eviction and for arrears of rent and mesne profits. .5. The defendant filed his written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff and stated that the said shop No. 8 was on rent with him from the year 1969 at the rate of Rs. 50/-per month and uptil 31.1975 he had been making payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 50/-per month. .5. The defendant filed his written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff and stated that the said shop No. 8 was on rent with him from the year 1969 at the rate of Rs. 50/-per month and uptil 31.1975 he had been making payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 50/-per month. Thereafter, despite repeated tendering, the plaintiff did not accept the rent with the oblique intention of enhancing the rent contrary to the law and several times the rent was sent by money orders which were refused. Pointing out certain disputes between the parties arising because of obstruction in the use of the premises, the defendant submitted that the receipt .of Rs. 1,640/-was wrongly given stating it to be the rent of the period 2.1975 to 110.1976 by which he noticed that the rent of Rs. 80/-per month was charged by the plaintiffs which was never agreed upon. The plaintiffs could not have recovered more than Rs. 50/-per month as rent and, therefore, the defendant on 37.1978 made an application under Section 19-A of the Act pointing out that the rent from 2.1975 to 37.1978 would be Rs. 2,100/-for 42 months at the rate of Rs. 50/-per month. Out of this, the plaintiff has already received the amount of Rs. 1,640/-on 19.7.1978 and, therefore, the remaining amount of Rs. 460/-was deposited in the Court. Thereafter, further deposits made under Section 19-A of the Act were also referred and it was pointed out that the rent upto 310.1979 was deposited and from 11.1979 the rent was due at the rate of Rs. 50/-per month which the defendant was ready to deposit upon determination by the Court under Section 13(3) of the Act. The defendant denied the grounds of default and reasonable and bona fide requirement and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. After filing of the written statement by the defendant-appellant, the learned trial Court took up the matter for provisional determination of rent on 16.3.1981. The learned Court on the basis of material on record determined the amount of rent from 110.1976 to 30.6.1978 at Rs. 1,640/-and thereafter from 7.1978 to 28.2.1981 at Rs. 2,720/-on which interest was calculated at the rate of 6% per annum amounting to Rs. 307.42. In all, an amount of Rs. 4,667.42 was determined from which Rs. The learned Court on the basis of material on record determined the amount of rent from 110.1976 to 30.6.1978 at Rs. 1,640/-and thereafter from 7.1978 to 28.2.1981 at Rs. 2,720/-on which interest was calculated at the rate of 6% per annum amounting to Rs. 307.42. In all, an amount of Rs. 4,667.42 was determined from which Rs. 1,210/-allegedly deposited by the tenant were ordered to be adjusted and defendant tenant was directed to make payment of the remaining amount of Rs. 3,457.42 within one month and was also directed to make payment of the rent at the rate of Rs. 85/-per month from 3.1981 within the time prescribed by law. 7. The defendant thereafter moved an application on 20.4.1981 expressing difficulties being faced by him in arranging for the amount of Rs. 3,457.42 and prayed for further time for making payment. This application was granted by the Court on 20.4.1981 itself and the defendant was allowed time upto 30.5.1981 for payment. However, thereafter the defendant moved an application on 15.1981 seeking to deposit the rent for the month of March, April and May and prayed for orders permitting such deposit. This application moved on 15.1981 was opposed by the plaintiffs with the contention that the rent for the month of March was not tendered within time as required by Section 13(4) of the Act. The Counsel for the plaintiffs refused to accept rent of the month of March and accepted the amount of Rs. 170/-towards rent for the month of April and May only. 8. The defendant of course moved an application on 25.1981 and deposited the rent for the month of March, 1981 on 29.5.1981. On the next day, i.e., 30.5.1981, the defendant made payment of the determined amount of Rs. 3,457.42 to the Counsel for the plaintiffs. 9. On 27.1981, the plaintiffs moved an application with the submissions that the defendant has defaulted in making payment of the rent for the month of March within time and, therefore, the defence against eviction be struck out. This application was allowed by the trial Court on 19.8.1981 for the reason that the rent for the month of March, 1981 was tendered only on 15th day of May, 1981 and, therefore, the rent having not been deposited as required by Section 13(4) of the Act, the defence against eviction was struck out under Section 13(5) of the Act. This application was allowed by the trial Court on 19.8.1981 for the reason that the rent for the month of March, 1981 was tendered only on 15th day of May, 1981 and, therefore, the rent having not been deposited as required by Section 13(4) of the Act, the defence against eviction was struck out under Section 13(5) of the Act. On this day, the defendant moved yet another application seeking amendment in the written statement which was allowed by the Court on 28.1981. An amended written statement was filed on 9.1981 in which the defendant added the ground that the alleged Panchayati Mandir Prabandhak Samiti was not registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act and hence the suit was not maintainable. In the meantime, an appeal was taken before the Addl. District Judge No. 1 Hanumangarh against the order dated 19.8.1981 striking out the defence of the defendant-appellant. This appeal was dismissed by the appellate Judge on 29.5.1982. In the suit proceedings, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1-vk;k oknh dks fookfnr ifjlj nwdku dh ;qfDr ;qDr ,oa lnHkkoh vko;drk gSA ifjlj [kkyh ugha gksus ij oknh dks vf/kd nqfo/kk gksxhA 2-vk;k oknh izfroknh ls fdjk;k ehu izksfQVl ds 2]915@& #i;k o Hkfo"; esa Hkh 85 #i;s ekgokj dh nj ls ehu izksfQVl izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 3-vk;k oknh nkok djus dk vf /kdkjh ugha gSA 4-vuqrks"kA 10. The plaintiffs examined one witness namely Surajbhan on 10.2.1983 and closed the evidence. The matter was thereafter posted for defendants evidence on 3.1983 on which date it was adjourned again for defendants evidence on 18.3.1983. 11. On this adjourned date of 18.3.1983, the defendant Hiralal was present before the Court as seen from his signatures put on the margin of the order-sheet. The learned Judge recorded that defendant did not wish to lead evidence. The defendants evidence was closed and the matter was posted for arguments on 14.1983 and after hearing the parties, the learned trial Judge proceeded to decide the suit on 19.5.1983. 12. The learned Judge after referring to the uncontroverted testimony of the plaintiff Surajbhan decided issue No. 1 relating to reasonable and bona fide requirement and so also comparative hardship in favour of the plaintiff . Regarding issue No. 2, the learned Judge found that Kabuliyatnama Exh. 1 has been proved on record which shows the rate of rent to be Rs. Regarding issue No. 2, the learned Judge found that Kabuliyatnama Exh. 1 has been proved on record which shows the rate of rent to be Rs. 85/-per month which has not been challenged even in cross-examination nor any evidence in rebuttal thereof has been produced. Therefore, this fact remains more or less undisputed that the rent was Rs. 85/-per month. An application was moved by the Counsel for the plaintiffs on 15.1983 that they had received the rent except for the month of March, 1981 and April, 1982 and no orders were required for payment of the remaining amount. The learned trial Court, therefore, ordered that the rent for these months of March, 1981 and April, 1982 deposited in the Court may be received by the plaintiff . (The copy of challan available on record relating to the rent of the month of April, 1982 shows that the said amount was tendered and deposited on 19.5.1982 only). Issue No. 3 relating to the competence of the plaintiff to maintain the suit was also decided in favour of the plaintiff . While considering the question of relief , the learned Judge found that the grounds of eviction as envisaged by Section 13(1)(a) and (h) of the Act were established and, therefore, the learned trial Court passed the decree for eviction of the defendant from the suit shop with further direction of entitlement of the plaintiffs to receive mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 85/-per month till recovery of possession. 13. The defendant-tenant preferred an appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 19.5.1983 passed by the learned trial Court. The learned Appellate Judge endorsed the findings on all the issues and dismissed the appeal maintaining the eviction decree passed by the trial Court. Against the Judgment and decree dated 19.1987 passed by the learned Appellate Judge, the tenant has filed this appeal which has been admitted while formulating aforesaid questions of law. 14. The learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that provisions of Section 13(5) of the Act are not mandatory and, therefore, the learned trial Court has erred in striking out the defence on one default concerning the month of March, 1981. 14. The learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that provisions of Section 13(5) of the Act are not mandatory and, therefore, the learned trial Court has erred in striking out the defence on one default concerning the month of March, 1981. The learned Counsel submitted with reference to the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Vishandas vs. Savitri Devi, 1988 (1) WLN 240 and decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of B.P. Khemka (P) Ltd. vs. Birendra Kumar Bhowmick, AIR 1987 SC 1010 , that provisions of Section 13(5) are not mandatory and it was not incumbent for the Court to have struck out the defence in all the cases and the delay ought to have been condoned in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The learned Counsel further submitted with reference to the decision in the case of Desjraj vs. Om Prakash & Anr., 1987 (1) RLR 244, that whole of the defence could not be struck out and the defendant ought to have been permitted to lead evidence on other issues. The learned Counsel further submitted that the evidence as produced by the plaintiff is not enough for a finding on the ground of eviction of reasonable and bona fide requirement in favour of the plaintiffs and the learned Courts below have not considered the aspect of comparative hardship as required by law. 15. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the issues sought to be raised by the appellant stand concluded by the later decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Nasiruddin & Ors. vs. Sita Ram Agarwal, 2003 (2) SCC 577 in which the Honble Supreme Court has laid down that the Court has no power under the Act of 1950 to extend the period for deposit of the rent beyond the statutory period as provided in the Act itself and Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable in case of default in depositing the rent under Section 13(4) of the Act. The learned Counsel submitted that the ratio of the Full Bench decision of this Court stands overruled by the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Nasiruddin & Ors. (Supra). The defence was rightly struck off and, therefore, the decree for eviction deserves to be maintained. The learned Counsel submitted that the ratio of the Full Bench decision of this Court stands overruled by the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Nasiruddin & Ors. (Supra). The defence was rightly struck off and, therefore, the decree for eviction deserves to be maintained. The learned Counsel also submitted that findings on reasonable and bona fide requirement and comparative hardship have rightly been arrived on the basis of uncontroverted evidence of the plaintiff and call for no interference. 16. Having given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and having scanned through the entire record, this Court is of opinion that the formulated Questions No. 2 and 3 deserve to be answered in the affirmative, the finding of reasonable and bona fide necessity remains perverse and the learned Courts below have not recorded findings in accordance with the requirements of Section 14(2) of the Act. However, regarding Questions No. 1 and 4, in view of admitted default in payment of the rent for the month of March, 1981, the order of striking out of defence remains legal and justified. Moreover, in view of another default in payment of the rent for the month of April, 1982 beyond the statutory period of 15 days after the expiry of the month of tenancy, the appellant would not be entitled for any benefit under Section 13(6) of the Act. So far the question of striking out of entire defence is concerned, the same is of no relevance for the conduct of the appellant himself . With these answers, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 17. Taking up the question of reasonable and bona fide necessity as involved in Qustion No. 2 first, it is found that the plaintiff has vaguely pleaded its case for the alleged requirement in rather casual and cursory manner with averments that there was insufficient accommodation and there was a need for additional accommodation with the expansion of the level of education in their institution but no particulars have been stated to show that the need as suggested by them is reasonable as well as bona fide. The so called evidence on this ground of eviction is still more sketchy and superficial, to say the least. The plaintiff has stated that they were to establish Sanskrit College, therefore, getting the shops vacated. The so called evidence on this ground of eviction is still more sketchy and superficial, to say the least. The plaintiff has stated that they were to establish Sanskrit College, therefore, getting the shops vacated. Then it has been cursorily stated that the main reason for getting the shop vacated was that Sanskrit College was opened and secondly that he (tenant) was not paying rent also. It is true that the defendant has not cross-examined the plaintiff on these aspects as the entire cross-examination has been diverted towards the question of registration of samiti and its membership etc., however, the examination-in-chief of the plaintiff makes out only that some idea concerning the Sanskrit Mahavidhyalaya was in the offing for which they were seeking eviction of the tenants. 18. It is well to remember that under Section 13(1)(h) of the Act, whether the landlord claims requirement for use and occupation of himself or his family, or for the use and occupation of any person for whose benefits the premises are held, or for public purpose, or philanthropic use; such requirement has to be reasonable and bona fide. The term requirement is not akin to a `desire. As explained by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Sarup Gupta vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, 1999 (6) SCC 222 , the degree of intensity contemplated by the word "required" is much higher than in mere desire. The Honble Supreme Court explained,- "Thus, the term bona fide or genuinely refers to a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by "requires" is much more higher than in mere desire. The phrase "required bona fide" is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is the outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the rent control legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Looked at from this angle, any setting of the facts and circumstances protruding the need of the landlord and its bona fides would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the Court." The Apex Court cautioned,-"In short, the concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life. An approach either too liberal or too conservative or pedantic must be guarded against." The test to be employed by the Courts as laid down in the case of Ram Dass vs. Ishwar Chander, 1988 (3) SCC 131, and as reiterated in Shiv Sarup Guptas case (Supra) remains thus:-"The need of the landlord should be genuine and honest, conceived in good faith; and that, further, the Court must also consider it reasonable to gratify that need. Landlords desire for possession, however honest it might otherwise be, has inevitably a subjecti