Rastogi, J.

Learned Single Judge of this Court because of the two conflicting views expressed by different coordinate Single Benches of this Court on the question in regard to interpretation of Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short, 'the Act 1950') in the case of Gopal Singh Vs. Civil Judge(JD), Bijaynagar, District Ajmer & Ors., 2011(1) CDR 333(Raj.), and in Jagannath Vs. Jodha Ram , 1980 RLW 42 & Jamna Lal Vs. Kanhaiya Lal, 1982 WLN 751, referred the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for placing the question for determination by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.12.2013, in pursuant thereto, the matter has been placed before us.

2. The facts, in brief, necessary for examining the question raised for our consideration, are that the revision-petitioner/landlord filed a suit for eviction, inter alia, on the ground of bonafide necessity and default as the defendant/respondent has not paid the rent since 01.06.1992, continuously for six months before filing of the suit. After the notices of the suit came to be served upon the defendant/respondent, written statement was filed and after taking note of the submissions made, the learned trial Court determined the provisional rent upto 30.11.1994 vide its order dated 24.11.1994 and also the monthly rent, which was to be deposited as per the provisions contained in Section 13(3) of the Act 1950. As alleged by the revision-petitioner, there was a default in making the payment of monthly rent by the defendant/respondents in the following months:-

Rent for the month	Became due on	Rent deposited on	Delay
March, 1997	15.04.1997	19.04.1997	4 days
December, 1997	15.01.1998	23.01.1998	8 days
January, 1998	15.02.1998	17.02.1998	2 days
August, 1998	15.09.1998	17.09.1998	2 days

3. Indisputably, no application was filed by the respondent-tenant seeking permission of the Court for extension of the prescribed time for depositing the rent within the extended period. There is no dispute that when the rent was not deposited on or before fifteenth day of succeeding month, as determined under sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act 1950, which is the requirement of Section 13(4) of the Act 1950, at that stage, an application was filed by the revision petitioner/landlord on 08.11.2006 for striking off the defence of the respondent-tenant under Section 13(5) of the Act 1950. The reply to the application was filed but even at the stage of filing reply, it was nowhere prayed that the extended period within which the monthly rent has been deposited, may be regularized and at the same time, there was no separate application filed by the defendant/respondent in support thereof.

4. The learned trial Judge, taking note of the scheme of the Act 1950, struck out the defence of the respondent-tenant vide its order dated 09.10.2007, which came to be challenged by the respondent-tenant in appeal before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Kota and the learned Court of appeal after hearing the parties, set aside the order of the learned trial Judge, dated 09.10.2007, and restored the right of defence to the respondent-tenant under its order dated 01.02.2011, which was initially challenged by the petitioner in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein on an objection raised regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of order impugned being revisable, the learned Single Judge under its order dated 17.12.2013, directed the Registry to treat the writ petition as revision petition and to number it accordingly and in compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge, the writ petition was registered as S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 21/201