JAGAN NATH Vs. HEERA CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this revision, the petitioners -defendants seek to assail the orders of the two learned courts below whereby the plaintiff's application u/s. 13 (5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) has been accepted and the petitioners' defence against the eviction has been struck off, while petitioner's application u/s. 13 (4) of the Act read with Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act has been dismissed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff non-petitioner filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner inter-alia on the ground of default as contemplated by Sec. 13 (1) (a) of the Act. THE learned trial court made provisional determination of rent, that amount was deposited. However, thereafter, since 8. 10. 94 the defendant did not or could not deposit the monthly rent. However the rent for the period 1. 10. 94 to 30. 9. 95 was deposited by the petitioners on 3. 6. 95. It is at this time i. e. on 3. 6. 95 that the petitioner filed an application u/s. 13 (5) of the Act read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, inter alia contending that a copy of the challan and tender dt. 7. 10. 94 was lost by the petitioner and thereafter he got busy in connection with his daughter's engagement, in which connection he had often to go outside Bhilwara. THE daughter was ultimately married on 8. 5. 95. THEreafter on 24. 5. 95 when he met his counsel he was told that monthly rent has not been deposited. On these premises the petitioner sought condonation of delay for the period upto 3. 6. 95.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and have gone through the various judgments cited on either side so also the relevant provisions of law.