The court's discretion to extend the time for deposit of rent under Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 should be exercised liberally in favor of the tenant.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated September 21, 1981 passed by learned Additional District Judge, No.1, Hanumangarh, whereby the petitioner's appeal against the order dated December 4, 1980 of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Hanumangarh was dismissed.

2. The learned Additional Civil Judge, Hanumangarh by his order dated December 4, 1980 struck off the defence of the petitioner on the ground that the rent for the month commencing from jeth (first) Sudil 1 of S.Y. 2037 to jeth(Second) Budi 15(Punam) of S.Y. 2037 which became payable on the 15th day of the succeeding month namely: on jeth Sudi 14 of S.Y 2037 corresponding to June 27 1980 was paid to the respondent on June 29, 1980 i.e. two days late.

3. In a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment, the learned trial court determined the provisional rent on May 9, 1980 and ordered that the provisional rent together with interest thereon be either paid or deposited before the next date i.e. July 8, 1980. Before the next date, one month's rent had become due as stated above, so an application was filed by the plaintiff on July 16, 1980 for striking off the defence of the petitioner. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments, on this application, allowed the same and struck off the defence of the petitioner. The reason assigned by the learned Additional Civil judge is that the defendant- petitioner opted for payment of rent to the party instead of depositing the rent in court. so the defendant-petitioner cannot say that the delay was caused in payment of rent on account of vacation of the court. It was stated by the learned Additional Civil Judge that the defendant-petitioner did not move any application for condonation of delay. It was further recorded by the learned Additional Civil judge that the defendant does not want to submit an application for condo- nation of delay as it has been urged on his behalf that there is no need for condonation of delay. Aggrieved against the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge, the defendant went in appeal Before the appellate Court, an application was moved on September 7, 1981 for condonation of delay. The learned appellate Court declined to condone the delay on the ground that no affidavit has been filed along with the application and no ground has been given by the defendant for condonation of delay. The learned appellate court affirmed the view taken by the learned Additional Civil Judge that when the defendant has opted to make payment to the plaintiff, it was his duty to make the payment within 15 days.

4. It is-satisfied with the order of the learned Additional District judge, the defendant has preferred this revision petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this revision petition must succeed. On behalf of the plaint 1ff.respondent, Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondent contended that though there is a discretion vested in the court to extend the time upto 15 days under sub-section(4) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), but the discretion has to be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily. Both the courts below have exercised the discretion most judicially as the defendant-petitioner did not come forward with any cause whatsoever. So both the courts below were right in refusing to condone two days' delay caused by the petitioner in making payment of rent. He urged that in the trial court, no application for condonation of delay was moved and even in the first appellate court, the application was not accompanied with any affidavit and this could not constitute any ground that the rent could be deposited on the opening of the Court and so, on that basis, two days' delay caused in making payment of rent deserves to be condoned.

6. For appreciation of the controversy, it would be proper to reproduce Sec. 13(4) of the Act, which reads as under:-

"Sec. 13 Evict