KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. BALDEV KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC has been preferred by the defendant against the order dated 24.2.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the order dated 18.12.1999 passed by the learned Additional Civil 5 Judge (Junior Division), No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur has been affirmed.

(2.) The brief facts are that the plaintiff filed civil suit against the defendant for eviction and arrears of rent on the ground of default in payment of rent. The trial Court, therefore, determined the provisional rent on 9.10.1995 directing him to deposit the same within 15 days. It also directed him to deposit the rent from month to month by the 15th of each succeeding month. The non-petitioner-plaintiff filed an application under section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short 'the Act') for striking out the defence of the defendant stating therein that he had committed default in the payment/deposit of rent from month to month. The appellant/defendant denied this allegation by filing a reply and pleading therein that the rent was deposited by him in the bank account of the plaintiff. He also pleaded that he had filed an application against the order of determination of rent, which was decided on 25.4.1997 and the plaintiff has already withdrawn the said amount. He also moved an application under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of the delay on the ground that he remained ill and could not deposit the rent falling due from month to month. 1 The said application was also opposed by filing a reply thereto by the plaintiff, wherein he controverted the averments made in the application. He also pleaded that the defendant could have deposited the rent through anyone even if he was ill. The trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and allowed the application filed by the plaintiff under section 13(5) of the Act and struck out the defence of the defendant against eviction. The appeal filed by the defendant against the aforesaid order was also dismissed vide impugned order.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also to perused the impugned order. It cannot be disputed and is rather admitted fact that the rent payable and falling due from month to month was not deposited in time by the defendant. It is also a patent fact that the monthly rent was deposited beyond the extendable period of 15 days. The defendant did not make any application for extension of time in the trial Court for the 15 delayed payment. The application under section 5 of the Limitation, Act was filed by and on his behalf, in reply to the application filed by the plaintiff under section 13(5) of the Act.