TARUNA GANGWAL Vs. RADHEY SHYAM MERATWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1950 (in short `the Act') has been preferred by defendant (appellant herein) against the order dated 7. 4. 1999 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 6 Jaipur City, Jaipur, Striking out her defence against eviction under Section 13 (5) of the Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the relevant facts are that plaintiff instituted a civil suit in the court below against defendant for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent, personal bonafide necessity, nuisance and sub letting with the averment that the property described in para No. 1 of the plaint was let-out to her w. e. f. 1. 5. 1990 on a monthly rent of Rs. 3200/- per month which was enhanced to Rs. 3680/- per month from 1. 5. 1993. She failed to make payment of rent w. e. f. 1. 11. 1994 to 30. 4. 1995. In her written statement she admitted the tenancy. But pleaded that the rent was deposited through cheques and the details of such deposit were also given therein. She also admitted that rent from July, 1995 to October 1995 was due, but pleaded that a sum of Rs. 9600/- was deposited by her with the plaintiff as security which should have been adjusted against the outstanding rent.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has then argued that the Hon'ble Apex court Court has considered the cases reported in Mohammed Salimuddin vs. Misri Lal (supra), M/s. Sarwan Kumar Onkar Nath vs. Subhas Kumar Agarwalla (supra), in the case of Bhoja @ Bhoja Ram Gupta vs. Ramesh Agarwala & Others (10), and has held that there could not be any automatic adjustment. In the case Jagan Nath vs. Heera Chand (supra), there was solitary default whereas in the instant case, the defendant has committed regular defaults in the payment of monthly rent after provisional determination of rent. The application for condonation of delay filed in this Court has also been strongly opposed by filing a reply there to. It has been argued that the defendant being the master of her Accountant Bhagchand could not be permitted to say that she was not responsible for the late payment of the rent. it has also been argued that delay of 1 year 2 months and 2 days in the deposit of rent for the month of May, 1997 could not be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Naziruddin & Ors. vs. Sita Ram He has, therefore, urged that this application for condonation of delay in depositing the rent for the month of April 97, May 97 & August 97 may be dismissed.