JUDGMENT 1. - The present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellants-defendants in a suit for eviction against the judgment and decree dated 05.10.1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal Decree No.105/1993 "Manchha Ram S/o Kanhaiya Lal v. LRs of deceased Kistoorji, Chauthmal S/o Kistoorji & Ors. " by which, the learned First Appellate Court, while allowing the appeal of the plaintiff, directed eviction of the defendants, by reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.04.1988 passed by the learned Additional Munsif & Judicial Magistrate No.1, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 27/1984 "Manchha Ram v. LRs of Kistoorji, Chauthmal & Ors." , by which, the learned Trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 2. 2. The relevant extract of the judgment and decree dated 27.04.1988 passed by the Trial Court is as under:- loZizFke oknh ds izkFkZuk&i= /kkjk 13 ( 5 ) vf/kfu;e ij vkns'k ikfjr djuk mfpr gSA izkFkZuk&i= ds vuqlkj fdjk;k fu/kkZj.k djus ds i'pkr~ izfroknhx.k ds fu;ekuqlkj fdjk;k tek djkuk pkfg;s Fkk fdUrq i=koyh ij miyC/k jlhnksa ds vuqlkj fdjk;k fu;ekuqlkj tek djk;k tkuk izrhr ugha gksrk gSA izfroknh ds lkou on ,de laor~ 2041 ds Hkknok on vekol laor~ 2041 dk fdjk;k fnukad 15-9-1981 dk vFkkZr~ dkfrZd on 2 laor~ 2041 vFkkZr~ 16 fnu ds fodYi ls tfj;s jlhn la[;k 1764 tek djok;k gSA vr% /kkjk 13 ( 5 ) vf/kfu;e ds rgr izfroknh dk csn[kyh ds fo:) izfrj{kk dk vf/kdkj mPNsfnr fd;k tkus ;ksX; gS rFkk og fMQkYVj ik;k tkus ij /kkjk 13 ( 6 ) vf/kfu;e dk ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA izR;qRrj esa izfroknh dh vksj ls rdZ fn;k x;k fd izfroknh ds fo:) non-payment of rent dk ekeyk ugha gS dsoy ek= 16 fnu ds foyac ls fdjk;k tek djkuk ;fn eku Hkh fy;k tk; rc Hkh U;k; n'"Vkar eSllZ ch0ih0 [ksedk izkbZosV fyfeVsM cuke fcjsUnz dqekj] ,0vkbZ0vkj0 1987 lqizhe dksVZ 1010] ds U;k; n'"VkUr dk vuqlj.k djrs gq, ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; dh iw.kZ ihB us vius fu.kZ; fo'kunkl cuke lkfo=h nsoh] 1988 ( 1 ) MCY;w0,y0,u0 240] esa mDr U;k;ky; ds iwoZ fu.kZ; dks over-ruled djrs gq, ;g er O;Dr fd;k gS fd /kkjk 13 ( 5 ) vf/kfu;e Mk;jsDVjh gS esUMsVjh ugha gS rFkk tgka foyEc ls fdjk;k tek djkus dk fdjk;snkj ds fo:) vkjksi gS ;g foyEc {kek fd;k tkus ;ksX; gS rFkk bl vk/kkj ij izfroknh dk csn[kyh ds fo:) izfrj{kk dk vf/kdkj mPNsfnr ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg;sA rdZ fordZ ij xgjkbZiwoZd fopkj fd;kA ;g Lohd'r fLFkfr gS fd izfroknh ds fo:) non-payment of rent dk vkjksi ugha gS cfYd dsoy ek= izfrekg M;w gksus okyk fdjk;k 16 fnu foyEc ls tek djkus dk vkjksi gS rFkk bl laca/k esa U;k; n'"Vkar 1988 MCY;w0,y0,u0 240 bl izkFkZuk&i= ds rF;ksa ij iw.kZr;k ykxw gksrk gS ftlesa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us ,0vkbZ0vkj0 1987 lqizhe dksVZ 1010 dk vuqlj.k djrs gq, ;g er O;Dr fd;k gS fd /kkjk 13(4) specific enactment gS ftlesa fyfeVs'ku ,DV ykxw ugha gksus dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa bl izko/kku gsrq /kkjk 5 fyfeVs'ku ,DV iw.kZr;k ykxw gksrk gSA rFkk tgka U;k;ky; izfroknh dk csn[kyh ds fo:) izfrj{kk dk vf/kdkj mPNsfnr djus gsrq l{ke gks rFkk ;fn izfroknh ds fo:) tkucw>dj vFkok ykijokgh ls fdjk;k vnk ugha djus dk vkjksi ugha gks mu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa U;k;ky; dks bl foosd dk ykHk izfroknh dks nsrs gq, ;g foyEc {kek dj nsuk pkfg, rFkk /kkjk 13 ( 5 ) esa "shall" 'kCn dk vFkZ "may" ls yxk;k tkuk pkfg;s rFkk ;g izko/kku esaMsVjh ugha gksdj dsoy Mk;jsDVjh gSA vr% bl U;k; n'"VkUr ds izdk'k esa izfroknh }kjk foyEc ls tek djk;k x;k fdjk;k {kek ;ksX; gS rFkk bl vk/kkj ij izfroknh dk csn[kyh ds fo:) izfrj{kk dk vf/kdkj mPNsfnr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ifj.kker% oknh dk izkFkZuk&i= /kkjk 13 ( 5 ) vf/kfu;e vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA fook|d la[;k 1 o 7% mDr nksuksa fook|d fcUnq lqlaxr gksus ls budk fu.kZ; lkFk fd;k tkuk mfpr gSA okn&i= ds vuqlkj izfroknhx.k us vafre ckj fdjk;k vnk;xh jlhn la[;k 860 fnukad 5-12-1974 dks vlk<+ on ,de ls dkfrZd lqn iwue laor~ 2031 rd dk vnk fd;k blds i'pkr~ dksbZ fdjk;k vnk ugha fd;k rFkk okn izLrqr djrs le; izfroknhx.k esa 720@& :i;s fdjk;k cdk;k FkkA bl laca/k esa izfroknhx.k us vius mRrjokn esa ;g vfHkdFku fd;k gS fd izfroknhx.k us mijksDr fdjk;s ds vfrfjDr 5 ekg dk fdjk;k 120@& :i;s oknh dks vnk fd;s ftldh jlhn oknh us ugha nhA bl laca/k esa fook|d la[;k 7 fuf.kZr fd;k x;k ftls fl) djus dk Hkkj izfroknh ds ftEes j[kk x;kA bl laca/k esa izfroknh gLrnsoh & Mh0MCY;w0&1 us vius c;ku esa dgk gS fd laor~ 2030 dkrh lqn iwue ds ckn 5 ekg dk fdjk;k oknh dks nsus dk dgk gS bldh jlhn ugha nh x;h ckn esa nsus dks dgkA igys Hkh dbZ ckn fdjk;k fn;k mldh jlhn ckn esa nhA vkxs ;g Hkh dgk fd oknh dks fdjk;k /kkek o igys dh jlhn ekaxh rks u rks fdjk;k fy;k vkSj u jlhn nhA fdjk;k 50@& :i;s izfrekg djus dk dgk ftlds fy;s eSa jkth ugha gqbZA bl laca/k esa izfrijh{kk esa dgk fd 5 ekg dk fdjk;k nsus ckcr~ u rks uksfVl fn;k u fyf[kr esa lwpuk izsf"kr dhA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa izfroknh }kjk mDr 5 ekg dk fdjk;k oknhx.k dks fn;k tkuk izekf.kr ugha ekuk tk ldrkA D;ksafd ;fn okLro esa mlus ,slh dksbZ jkf'k fdjk;k vnk;xh ds :i esa nh gksrh rks og vo'; bldh fyf[kr lwpuk oknh dks nsrh tcfd oknh eaNkjke & ih0MCY;w0&1 us bl rF; dk [k.Mu djrs gq, dgk fd ;g xyr gS fd gLrnsoh us dbZ ckj eq>s fdjk;k fn;k vkSj eSaus jlhn ugha nh gksA ;g Hkh xyr gS fd esjs }kjk izLrqr vafre jlhn ds ckn gLrnsoh us 120@& :i;s fdjk;k fn;k gks vkSj eSaus mldh jlhn ckn esa nsus dks dgk gksA bl izdkj izfroknh o oknh ds ijLij fojks/kh c;ku 'kiFkiwoZd gS vU; dksbZ izfroknh us bl laca/k esa izLrqr ugha fd;s gSA vr% fook|d la[;k 7 dk fu.kZ; izfroknhx.k ds fo:) fd;k tkrk gSA izfroknhx.k us oknh }kjk cdk;k fdjk;k nsus ds laca/k esa fd;s x;s vfHkdFku ds fo:) mDr 5 ekg ds vfrfjDr fdjk;s dh vnk;xh ugha djuk Lohdkj fd;k gS] izfroknh us :i;s 696@& ejEer ij [kpkZ djuk crk;k gS fdUrq /kkjk 20 vf/kfu;e ds vuqlkj ejEer gsrq fdjk;snkj edku ekfyd dks lwpuk izsf"kr dj mlds }kjk ejEer dk;Z ugha djkus ij vf/kdre ,d o"kZ ds fdjk;s dk 1@12 Hkkx ejEer ij [kpZ dj ldrk gS vr% mDr jkf'k tks ejEer ij [kpZ djuk crk;h x;h gS cdk;k fdjk;s esa ls lek;ksftr fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA izfroknh ds ;ksX; vfHkHkk"kd us bl gsrq viuh Li"V okfnrk dk ifjp; nsrs gq, ;g Lohdkj fd;k fd fdjk;k vnk;xh esa pwd gksuk Lohdkj djrs gSa bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fook|d la[;k 1 dk fu.kZ; izfroknhx.k ds fo:) fd;k tkrk gS rFkk izfroknhx.k fdjk;k vnk;xh esa O;frdzeh gksuk izekf.kr ik;k tkrk gSA vr% oknh izfroknhx.k ls okn izLrqr djus rd cdk;k fdjk;k 720@& :i;s izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA fdjk;k fu/kkZj.k ds i'pkr~ izfroknh us mDr fdjk;k tek djk fy;k gS vr% oknh rkjh[k nkok ds i'pkr~ fu.kZ; rd vfrfjDr U;k;ky; 'kqYd vnk djsA pwafd izfroknhx.k us fdjk;k vnk;xh esa ;g izFke pwd dh gS vr% og /kkjk 13 ( 6 ) vf/kfu;e dk laj{k.k ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSA vr% bl vk/kkj ij csn[kyh dh fMdzh ikfjr fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA vr% bl fook|d dk fu.kZ; bl izdkj ls fd;k tkrk gSA vkns'k oknh dk okn fo:) izfroknhx.k ckcr~ csn[kyh [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA izfroknhx.k dks fdjk;k vnk;xh esa izFke pwd gsrq /kkjk 13@6 vf/kfu;e dk laj{k.k fn;k tkrk gSA oknh izfroknhx.k ls cdk;k rkjh[k nkok ls fu.kZ; rd vfrfjDr U;k;ky; 'kqYd vnk djus ij izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA izfroknhx.k }kjk tek djk;k x;k fdjk;k cdk;k jkf'k esa ls lek;ksftr fd;k tkosA ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, i{kdkj okn O;; viuk&viuk ogu djsaxsA vkns'kkuqlkj fMdzh ipkZ eqfrZc gksA Sd/- iz'kkUr dqekj 'kekZ vij eqfUlQ ,oa U;kf;d eftLV~sV la[;k&1] tks/kiqj " 3. The relevant extract of the judgment and decree dated 05.10.1993 passed by the Appellate Court is as under:- " 9- fdjk;snkjh ,d lhfer va'k rd gh fojklr esa izkIr gksrh gSA bl ekeys esa vk{ksi ;g ugha gS fd fdlh Hkh izfroknh ls oknh fey x;k gks vkSj fQj ,slk dj fdjk;k jkf'k tek ugha djokdj csn[kyh ds fo:) izfrj{kk [kkfjt djok nh gksA blds foijhr ns[kus esa ;g vk;k gS fd fnukad 10-5-1978 dks vkjth rkSj ij fdjk;k r; gksus ds ckn fdjk;k tek ugha djkus ij fnukad 28-1-1980 dks csn[kyh ds fo:) izfrj{kk [kkfjt gksus ij igys izfroknh la[;k pkj dslj mifLFkr gqbZ blds ckn esa izfroknh la[;k ,d pkSFkey mifLFkr gqvk] tks izfrj{kk ds fo:) csn[kyh ds vkns'k dks lekIr djkus dh gh ,d pky dk Hkkx FkhA bl izdkj izfroknhx.k dk gh vkil esa feyk gqvk gksuk vkSj ,d ds ckn ,d djds fu'pr x.kuk ls mifLFkr gksuk izdV gksrk gSA ;s lHkh ,d gh ifjokj ds lnL; gSa] eka] cgu ,oa HkkbZ gSa lkFk gh jgrs gSa vkSj lc dk ,d gh fgr gSA esjk er gS tc bl izdkj ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ka gSa rks fQj /kkjk 13 ( 3 ) vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vkjth rkSj ij fdjk;s dk iqu% fu/kkZj.k ugha gksuk FkkA eq0 gLrq nsoh us fnukad 10-5-1978 ds fdjk;k fu/kkZj.k ds vkns'k vihy ugha dj bls vfUre gksus fn;k vkSj fQj csn[kyh ds fo:) izfrj{kk gksus ij bldh vihy dh tks Hkh [kkfjt gks xbZ vkSj ;g vkns'k Hkh vc vfUre gks x;k gSA ,slk gksus ls csn[kyh ds fo:) [kkfjt izfrj{kk dk ;g vkns'k lHkh ij ck/;dkjh gksuk ekuk tk;sxkA ,slk gksus ls vc lHkh izfroknhx.k us /kkjk 13, vf/kfu;e ds v/khu csn[kyh ds fo:) laj{k.k [kks fn;k gS vkSj csn[kyh ds fy;s nk;h gSaA bl fcUnw ij fo}ku vf/koDrk us 1972 MCY;w0,y0,u0 19] 1989 jsUV ykW tujy jktLFkku 312] ,0vkbZ0vkj0 1987 ,l0lh0 1010] 1988 ( 1 ) MCY;w0,y0,y0 240] 1991 ( 1 ) jkt0ykW0fj0 619] 1990 ( 2 ) vkj0,y0vkj0 ist 649 ,oa ,0vkbZ0vkj0 ,l0lh0 964 izLrqr fd;s gSa ijUrq ftl izdkj dk fookn i{kdkjksa esa mBk gqvk gS vkSj r; gqvk gS] blds lUnHkZ esa bldh dksbZ laxrrk ugha gSA rn~uqlkj vc O;frdze dk ;g fcUnw oknh ds i{k r; fd;k tkrk gSA bl ckjs esa] fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us tks fu"d"kZ fudkys gSa mls vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA vkns'k 13- ifj.kker% mijksDr esa fd;s x;s voyksduksa ds vuqlkj vc ;g vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; ,oa fMdzh fnukad 27-4-1988 vikLr fd;s tkrs gSaA vc oknh ds i{k esa ,o izfroknhx.k ds fo:) fooknxzLr ifjlj [kkyh djokus ds lEcU/k esa fMdzh fuEu vk'k; dh ikfjr dh tkrh gS%& ,& oknh izfroknhx.k ls fooknxzLr ifjlj dks [kkyh djok dCtk izkIr djus dk gdnkj gSA ch& oknh izfroknhx.k ls fooknxzLr ifjlj dk p<+k gqvk fdjk;k Hkh izkIr djus dk gdnkj gS] tks fdjk;k U;k;ky; esa tek gS mls Hkh oknh izfronhx.k ls izkIr djus dk gdnkj gSA lh& izfroknhx.k dks fooknxzLr ifjlj [kkyh dj oknh dks dCtk lqiqnZ djus ds fy;s vkt ls nks ekg dk le; fn;k tkrk gSA Mh& ekeys ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, vihy O;; ds ckjs esa dksbZ vkns'k ugha fn;k x;kA Sd/- ( ?khlkyky pkS/kjh ) vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k dze&2] tks/kiqj " 4. Being aggrieved, the defendants-appellants-tenants have filed the present second appeal in this Court on 24.11.1993. 5. A coordinate Bench of this Court, while admitting the present second appeal on 16.07.1997, has framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration by this Court:- "(1) Whether the learned trial court has correctly extended the benefit of sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short Act No.17 of 1950) after coming to the conclusion that the appellant has committed first default in payment of rent but the learned first appellate court has illegally set aside the aforesaid finding which is not sustainable in the eye of law? (2) Whether the provisional determination of rent under sub-section (3) of Section 13 of Act No.17 of 1950 against defendant Hasti Devi is not binding on rest of the tenants-defendants against whom the suit was proceeding ex parte? (3) Whether if upon the application of Mst.Keshar Devi and on application of Chotmal, the order to proceed ex parte against them was recalled then the learned trial court was justified to determine the rent provisionally as envisaged under sub-section (3) of Section 13 of Act No.17 of 1950? (4) Whether delay condoned in deposit of provisionally determined rent by the learned trial court within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 13 of Act No.17 of 1950 is sufficient as the plaintiff has submitted to that order and the learned first appellate court was justified in reopening it in first appeal, if so, its effects?" 6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the judgments and decree of both the Courts below, this Court is satisfied that the substantial questions of law, as framed above, deserve to be answered in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents-landlord and against the defendants-appellants-tenants. 7. In the case of Bulaki Dass S/o Asha Ram Purohit v. Ram Swaroop S/o late Dwarka Dass Rathi, 2009 (2) WLC 298, following the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Shiv Dutt Jadia v. Ganga Devi reported in (2002) 3 SCC 189 , this Court granted eviction decree upon the second default committed by the tenant in payment of monthly rent during the pendency of the appeal. This Court in the aforesaid case of Bulaki Dass (supra) has held as under:- "18. This Court in the aforesaid case of Bulaki Dass (supra) has held as under:- "18. Having heard the learned counsel at length and having gone through the record of the case and the judgments of two Courts below and the judgments cited at Bar, this Court is of the opinion that the Courts below cannot be said to have erred in any manner in passing the eviction decree against the appellant-tenant on the ground of second default. The deposit in the Court of learned Munsif Magistrate without any procedure known to law at all under Section 19A of the Act or otherwise is of no consequence and cannot enure to the benefit of the defendant-tenant. The said deposit, if any, is no deposit and has been rightly treated as not a valid tender of rent by the defendant-tenant by the Courts below. Admittedly, the first deposit itself for the month of June, 1980 was made by the tenant on 17.7.1980 after the suit proceedings terminated on 11.7.1980 with dismissal of the appeal by the first appellate court. Therefore, on 14.7.1980, no proceedings were pending in the Court and, therefore, deposit of rent for the month of June, 1980 in the learned trial Court was not at all a valid tender. Similarly deposits for the month of July, 1980 and August, 1980 were also without any consequence. The present and second suit came to be filed by the plaintiff on 4.2.1981. Though it was required of the learned trial Court to determine the arrears of rent under Section 13(3) of the Act, since it was a suit on the ground of second default, merely because that is not done, the defendant-tenant cannot take any advantage of that situation. After institution of the suit on 4.2.1981, any deposit under Section 19A of the Act was also not permissible as held by this Court in Swaran Devi v. Kailash Chandra (supra). The provisions of Section 19A of the Act are meant to be resorted to if the landlord illegally refused to accept the rent from the tenant after following the procedure under Clause (a) and (b) both, as has been laid in the case of Bajrang Lal v. Ramdeo (supra). Nothing of this sort under Clause (b) was followed by the appellant for any of the default months upto January, 1981. Nothing of this sort under Clause (b) was followed by the appellant for any of the default months upto January, 1981. The tenant in order to maintain his tenancy right is allowed to deposit the rent in the Court instead of payment of the same to the landlord only after following the mandatory procedure under Clause (a) and (b) both. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the rent at least for the month of June, 1980 to August, 1980 was tendered to the landlord at any point of time, therefore, deposit for these three months cannot be said to be a valid deposit as per provisions of Section 19A of the Act. Similarly, for the month of September, 1980 to November, 1980, the money orders sent by the defendant which were of course refused by the plaintiff landlord for these three months also, there was no deposit of the same by the tenant in the Court under Section 19A of the Act. Thus, for six months from June, 1980 to November, 1980, the second default stood committed by the tenant. The deposit under Section 19A of the Act which came to be made by the defendant - tenant on 10.2.181 for 5 months (September, 1980 to January, 198) was not in accordance with law, after institution of present suit on 4.2.1981 and as procedure both under Clause (a) and (b) was not followed by the tenant and, therefore, the said deposit also does not wash away the second default which already stood committed by the defendant - tenant. Admittedly, the law does not permit any leniency and waiver in the case of second default and eviction decree under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act is bound to be passed on commitment of second default in payment of rent. As already discussed above, the second default for the period of six months from June, 1980 to November, 1980 stood committed by the defendant-tenant on 15th December, 1980 and the eviction decree was bound to be passed and was, therefore, rightly passed by the Courts below. 19. As already discussed above, the second default for the period of six months from June, 1980 to November, 1980 stood committed by the defendant-tenant on 15th December, 1980 and the eviction decree was bound to be passed and was, therefore, rightly passed by the Courts below. 19. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant do not help the case of the appellant in any manner, and they are distinguishable from the facts of the present case, whereas the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent fully support the case of the plaintiff-respondent, particularly decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh (supra), decision of this Court in the case of Bajrang Lal (supra) and the decision of this Court in the case of Swaran Devi (supra) also support the case of the plaintiff-respondent. 20. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that there is no force in the present second appeal filed by the appellant-defendant and the same deserves to be dismissed and the substantial question of law quoted above deserves to be answered against the defendant-tenant and the decree of eviction deserves to be upheld by this Court. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed with costs throughout." 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram - 2003 DNJ SC 180 also held as under:- "41. Thus, on analysis of the aforesaid two decisions we find that wherever the special Act provides for extension of time or condonation of default, the Court possesses the power therefor, but 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. 42. In that view of the matter it must be held that in absence of such provisions in the present Act the court did not have the power to either extend the period to deposit the rent or to condone the default in depositing the rent. 43. Coming to the second question, we are of the view that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable where there is a default in depositing the rent by the tenant under section 13(4) of the Act. 44. It is true that Rajasthan Act does not expressly exclude the application of Limitation Act. 43. Coming to the second question, we are of the view that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable where there is a default in depositing the rent by the tenant under section 13(4) of the Act. 44. It is true that Rajasthan Act does not expressly exclude the application of Limitation Act. But Section 5 in its terms is not applicable to wherever there is a default in depositing the rent by the tenant. 45. Section 5 of the Limitation Act reads under:- "5.Extention of prescribed period in certain cases.-Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of O.XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfied the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period." 46. On perusal of the said Section it is evident that the question of application of Section 5 would arise where any appeal or any application may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfied the court hat he had sufficient cause for not making the appeal or application within such period. Section 13(4) provides that in a suit for eviction o the ground set forth in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) the tenant shall on the first date of hearing or on or before such date, the Court may on the application fixed in this behalf or within such time the tenant shall deposit in court or pay to the landlord in Court as determined under sub-section (3) from the date of such determination or within such further time not exceeding three months as may be extended by the Court. Thus, sub-section(4) itself provides for limitation of a specified period within which the deposit has to be made, which cannot be exceeding three months as extended by this Court. 47. The matter may be examined from another angle. The deposit by the tenant within 15 days is not an application within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Since the deposit does not require any application, therefore, the provisions of Section 5 cannot be extended where the default takes place in complying with an order under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act.½" 9. The deposit by the tenant within 15 days is not an application within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Since the deposit does not require any application, therefore, the provisions of Section 5 cannot be extended where the default takes place in complying with an order under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act.½" 9. In view of the above, the delay in deposit of rent could not be condoned and the defendant-tenant was not entitled to the relief under Section 13() of the Act. The appellate court was justified in granting the eviction decree on this ground. 10. Accordingly, the present second appeal of the appellants-defendants-tenant is dismissed, while answering the aforesaid substantial questions of law in favour of the plaintiff-respondents-landlord, and it is directed that the appellants-defendants-tenant shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property in question to the respondents-plaintiffs on or before 31.12.2016 and shall pay mesne profit @Rs.5,000/- per month (Rupees Five Thousand only) commencing from the month of January, 2016 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the respondent/plaintiff also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of One Year for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellant/defendant/tenant shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the respondent/plaintiff within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @9% per annum. The appellant/tenant shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within one month and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. The appellant-defendant shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within one month and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the respondent-plaintiff within a period of One Year from today or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the respondent-plaintiff shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. No costs. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the learned Courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.Appeal dismissed. *******