SUNDAR LAL JAIN Vs. SHRIMATI LAJWANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is only one question for consideration in this revision application and that is whether the order, dated December 21, 1956, of the appellate Court (the First Additional District Judge of Delhi) striking out the defence of the defendant, in the suit against him for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent, under section 13(5) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act (Act No. XXXVIII of 1952), is sound in law ? The facts are as given below :-

(2.) The plaintiff thereafter made an application to the trial Court that, the defendant not having deposited rent for the month of August, 1955, by September 15, 1955, his defence be struck off under section 13(5) of the Act. This application was resisted by the defendant. He explained that he could not deposit rent in September because the Court was closed for vacation. He made application for the deposit on the first day of the opening of the Court which was October 1, 1955, but the order on his application was passed so late in the day that by the time he was given the application with the order the Treasury had closed and it had become impossible for him to make the deposit on that day. The following day was a public holiday being a Sunday. He actually deposited the amount on October 3, 1955. The learned trial Judge, was of the opinion that, in the circumstances of the case the defendant had substantially complied with the provisions of section 13(5) of the Act and dismissed the application of the plaintiff. The plaintiff went in appeal against the order of the trial Court and the appeal was heard by the First Additional District Judge of Delhi. The learned District Judge was of the opinion that a definite date for the deposit of rent is fixed by section 13(5) of the Act and it being a date fixed by statute the Court has absolutely no power to extend the time for making the deposit and that no excuse, however valid, availed the defendant for he had no choice but to make the deposit by the date as required by the statute. The appeal was accepted ordering the striking out of the defence of the defendant and the case was remitted to the trial Court for proceeding with the trial in the circumstances. It is the order of the appellate Court of which revision is sought in this application. The part of sub-section (5) of section 13 of the Act that is relevant for the purpose reads -

(3.) The statute thus fixes exact date for the deposit of future rent month by month under the orders of the Court on an application of the plaintiff-landlord. It is obvious that against the terms of the statute the Court have no power to extend time for the making of the deposit. However, in the present case, I agree with the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, that there is no question of extension of time by the Court and it is a misconception to say that, in the circumstances of this case, deposit made on the first day after the opening of the trial Court, after vacation, is a deposit made on extension of the time, under the order of the Court, provided in section 13(5) of the Act. It is not a case of extension of time and the defendant does not seek to justify the extension of time on any ground. The position taken on behalf of the defendant is that he is under the law entitled to make the deposit on October 1, 1955. This position is taken on his behalf relying on Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and sub-section (1) of that section which is relevant here, reads -