The plaintiff-applicant filed the present suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the defendant-non-applicant. The claim for eviction was based on personal requirement of the plaintiff and default in payment of arrears of rent inspite of service of notice on the tenant.

2. The defendant disputed the plaintiff's claim for arrears of rent. Before the written statement was filed the plaintiff submitted an application on 10-12-1969 under section 13(6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, praying that as the defendant has failed to pay arrears of rent within one month from the service of notice upon him, his defence against eviction may be struck off. In reply the defendant submitted an application on 6-1-1970 praying that the delay in depositing the arrears of rent may be condoned. The defendant prayed for condonation of delay on the ground that he being a poor man was unable to pay the arrears as also that he did not know the law that the arrears have to be deposited within one month from the service of summons. The trial Court condoned the delay on the ground that the defendant was unaware of the provisions of law. In Civil Revision No. 329/1971 this Court set aside the order of the trial Court because this Court was of the opinion that ignorance of law was no excuse. However this Court remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to decide the application afresh because other grounds raised by the tenant were not considered by the trial Court.

3. The trial Court thereafter again considered the matter and has condoned the delay. The trial Court has held that the defendant has deposited the entire arrears of rent and that it was his first default and it cannot be said that is was not bona fide or that the default was committed with a view to harass the plaintiff. In the circumstances, the trial Court in its discretion did not deem it fit to strike out the defence against eviction and condoned the delay in depositing the arrears of rent. The trial Court also observed that if defaults are committed by the tenant in future after July, 1972 such defaults shall not be condoned. The plaintiff has challenged this order in this revision.

Held : It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the previous order of the trial Court was set aside by this Court on the ground that ignorance of law was no excuse and that in the present order also virtually the trial Court has done the same. The trial Court was bound by the previous order of this Court and ought not to have condoned the delay and the defence of the defendant should have been struck off. I am unable to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. The trial Court has specifically said that ignorance of law pleaded by the tenant cannot be an excuse for the default committed by the tenant. He took into consideration that the entire amount has been deposited by the tenant when the application was being considered by the trial Court. It has also been taken into account that it was the first default by tenant and that it was bona fide. On these facts the trial Court in its discretion refused to strike out the defence which is an extreme step. It cannot be said that the trial Court has committed any illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction vested in it by law. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court. Revision dismissed.