ORDER : This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant, against the order dated 6-2-2007 passed by learned District Judge, whereby the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal of the petitioner- defendant being Appeal No. 49/06- Dev Raj v. Sanjay Kumar & Anr., and upheld the order dated 21-11-2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Churu allowing plaintiffs application u/S. 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as Act of 1950) resulting into striking off of the defence of the petitioner-defendant on the point of second default in payment of rent to the landlord. The suit shop, situated in Churu, was initially let out to the petitioner-tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- per month prior to 1987. There was default in payment of rent by the petitioner-tenant from 19-8-1987 to 31-7-1998 for about 12 years. 2. Learned trial Court determined the provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the Act of 1950 vide order dated 20-2-2003, determining the arrest of rent for the period 1-6-1995 to 28-2-2008 for 92 months @ 200/- per month at Rs. 18,400/- and interest on that of Rs. 4,186/-, total arrears of rent of Rs. 22,580/-. The said amount, however, was deposited with a delay of six days by the petitioner tenant on 20-3-2003 in the trial Court. 3. Mr. Shambhoo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant urged that there was reasonable and sufficient cause in the said delay of six days in depositing the arrear of rent as determined by the learned trial Court and, therefore, the time period of fifteen days given under Section 13(4) of the Act of 1950 ought to have been extended by the learned trial Court and, therefore, defence of the tenant could not be struck off. The learned appellate Court below in the impugned order dated 6-2-2007, has held that in view of the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Nassiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal, reported in 2003 DNJ (SC) 180 : ( AIR 2003 SC 1543 ), the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, do not apply in these cases under the Rent Control Law and, therefore, the delay of six days was fatal to the defendant-tenant and the defence of tenant deserves to be struck off under Section 13(5) of the Act of 1950, resulting into struck of his defence. 4. This Court in SBCSA No. 125/2011-Smt. Kamla Devi Surana v. Madan Lal Harit, decided on 14-9-2012, following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nassiruddin ( AIR 2003 SC 1543 ) (supra), has held as under : 8. Thus, the legal position is settled beyond the pale of doubt that the delay in deposit of rent as fixed by the trial Court provisionally either under Section 7 of the Act or under Section 13(3) of the Act, cannot be condoned by that of one day, one month or more as Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply in such cases and as held by the Honble Supreme Court in Nasiruddin & Ors. v. Sita Ram Agrawal (supra) followed by this Court consistently, the delay in deposit of rent in the present case, was bound to result in the eviction decree. 9. Since it is well settled that eviction decree on only one ground can be maintained, this Court is of the opinion that the eviction decree was rightly granted by the learned trial Court on the ground of non-payment of provisional rent determined by the learned Court below within stipulated time and has been wrongly reversed by the learned first Appellate Court in view of the aforesaid decision of this Court as well as Honble Apex Court. Consequently, this Court does not consider it necessary to answer other substantial questions of law framed by the co-ordinate Bench and answering the question No. 2 in favour of plaintiff - landlady, the present second appeal of the plaintiff - landlady deserves to be allowed. 10. Consequently, this Court does not consider it necessary to answer other substantial questions of law framed by the co-ordinate Bench and answering the question No. 2 in favour of plaintiff - landlady, the present second appeal of the plaintiff - landlady deserves to be allowed. 10. The Government servant (defendant tenant) in whose favour present tenancy was given way back in the year 1978 on 23-12-1978 has withheld the possession of suit premises at paltry sum of Rs. 75/- only so far for last 34 years. Sheer length of litigation through long chain of Court procedures has enured to the benefit of defendant tenant, though in law, he was not entitled to retain such possession of suit property. Though this Court has not gone into other substantial questions of law, the findings of learned trial Court that he was when transferred from Rajgarh to Churu, which is said to be about 70 kms. away from the suit premises and also that the house had become unfit for human habitation are in favour of the plaintiff landlord. In these circumstances this Court is of the opinion that enhanced mesne profit payable by the defendant tenant deserves to be paid from the date of impugned order of the appellate Court i.e. 12-1-2001. 11. Consequently, the present second appeal of the appellate - landlady - plaintiff is allowed and the question No. 2 framed above is answered in favour of the plaintiff landlady and against the tenant - defendant. The judgment and eviction decree of the learned trial Court is restored. Costs to be paid by the defendant - tenant to the plaintiff - landlady quantified at Rs. 5000/- only. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and in view of binding precedents of this Court as well as Apex Court, no error is found in the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below dated 6-2-2007 and 21-11-2006, the defence of the petitioner-tenant has rightly been struck off, which calls for no interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of this Court. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner-tenant is found to be devoid of any force and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the respondents and the learned courts below forthwith. Petition dismissed.