RAM KISHORE Vs. ROOPESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the plaintiff against the order of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Alwar dated 13. 10. 1981.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this revision are that the plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent on the ground of default in the payment of rent and material alteration. It was alleged in the plaint that the rent was not paid since 1. 6. 1974 and as such the defendant was a defaulter in the payment of rent On 7. 4. 1977 the defendant moved an application u/s 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Premises Act) to determine the amount of rent. The Court determined the rent on 14. 4. 1977 and directed the defendant to deposit a sum of Rs. 7380/- including interest within a period of one month. On 12. 5. 1977, the defendant prayed for extention of time for depositing the said amount of rent and he was allowed to deposit the same by 12th July, 1977. It is not in dispute that on 11. 7. 77 the defendant deposited the aforesaid amount. On 12. 12. 1978 the plaintiff moved an application u/s 13 (6) of the Premises Act to the effect that the defendant had not paid rent since April, 1978 and onwards. The defendant in reply to the aforesaid application submitted that he had deposited all rent having fallen due This application remained pending and the defendant moved another application and stated that as the Civil Courts had remained closed from 30. 5. 1977 to 26. 6. 1977 and had opened on 27. 6. 1977 but as he remained ill during the period commencing from 24. 6. 77 and ending on 10. 7. 77, he could not deposit the rent for the month of May, 1977 on the opening day of the Civil Courts i. e. on 27 6 1977 and had to deposit the same along with the amount of arrears of rent determined u/s 13 (3) of the Act on 11. 7. 1977 The defendant, therefore, prayed for condoning the delay in depositing the rent for the month of May, 1977. The learned trial court held that the defendant had not deposited the rent for the month of May, 1977 within time and therefore his defence against eviction has struck off Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the defendant filed an appeal, which came up for consideration before the learned Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge took the view that the Civil Courts were closed for summer vacations upto 26. 6. 1977 and the defendant was entitled to 15 days from the reopening day of the courts i. e. 27. 6. 77 The appellate court was also satisfied that there was sufficient cause for extending the time and the rent having been deposited on 11. 7. 1977 was within 15 days of 27. 6. 77. Learned Additional District Judge, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial court. Aggrieved against the order of learned Additional District Judge, the plaintiff has filed this revision.