Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, is directory, not mandatory. The court has the power to extend the time for deposit of rent beyond the limit prescribed under Section 13(4) in the interest of justice and equity.

1. This second appeal of the tenant arises out of a suit for rent and ejectment filed by the landlord respondent.

2. In brief, the facts are that the tenant-appellant had been given a property on rent by the landlord-respondent. According to the landlord the tenant had not paid rent w.e.f. Asauj Sudi 11, Samvat 2039 to Magh Sudi 10, Samvat 2040. Thus, he had committed default in payment of rent for more than six months and the landlord had acquired a right to seek eviction of the tenant. The suit was contested by the tenant, who in his written statement asserted that he is doing business in the name and style of 'Ram Band' in the disputed premises for the last 40 years. The initial rent was र 10/-. The rent was paid to the predecessor in title of the landlord. Subsequently, the rent was increased from time to time, and, in the last the tenant has been paying the rent of र 35/-per month. The landlord wanted the vacation of tenanted premises, but, the tenant declined to do the same. Thereafter, the landlord stopped accepting the rent, although, the tenant had offered the same to the landlord on many occasions. He also asked the landlord to give the account number, but, the landlord did not disclose the account number and gave oral promises. On the basis of the aforesaid assertion, the tenant asserted that he had not committed any default in payment of rent. The learned trial court passed an order on 1.10.84 and determined the arrears of rent and interest as र 950/-. The tenant deposited the amount of rent within the time specified by the trial court.

3. The landlord filed an application dated, 1.4.85 under section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, alleging that the tenant had not made payment of monthly rent regularly for the months of November and December, 1984 and therefore, his defence should be struck of. The tenant contested this application by filing a reply dated, 6.5.85. In this reply he asserted that he had went to the plaintiff to offer rent but the landlord declined to accept the same. He had suddenly to go to Barmer for his professional work. From there he remitted the rent to the landlord by money order at Barmer, but the same was not accepted. When he came back from Barmer, he was advised to deposit the rent; the same was done by him. He further stated that the suit ought to have been dismissed, as soon as he had deposited the amount of rent as determined by the Court. He prayed that the delay in making of the deposit of rent may be done (sic condoned) and the suit be dismissed under section 13(6) of the 1950 Act. The learned Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer (East), passed an order on 7.5.1985 and held that the tenant had not deposited the monthly rent. While taking note of the fact that the tenant in fact, had sent the money order from Barmer and had produced the money receipt in respect of this assertion, learned Munsiff held that there was no justification for sending the rent by money order. Learned Munsiff also did not accept the plea raised on behalf of the tenant that the suit should have been dismissed immediately after the tenant had deposited the amount of rent determined by the trial court vide its order dated, 1.10.84. In doing so, the learned Munsiff observed that the tenant had in his written statement not accepted default in payment of rent and an issue had also been framed in that regard and the burden was on the defendant, therefore, the suit could not be dismissed by giving benefit of Section 13(6). The tenant had committed default in payment of rent and, therefore, his defence had to be struck of.

4. Thereafter, vide judgment and decree dated, 21.5.85 the learned Munsiff decreed the suit for eviction by holding that the tenant had not paid the rent to the landlord. Learned Munsiff also held that the tenant had not made deposit in terms of Section 13(4) of 1950 Act.

5. On appeal, learned Additional District Judge No. 2 Ajmer, held that