VIJAY KUMAR Vs. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners defendants to quash the impugned orders dt. 20.12.2005 (Annex.3) passed by Civil Judge (JD), Jodhpur City, Jodhpur whereby the learned trial Court struck down the right of defence on the ground that petitioner deposited the monthly rent on 17.5.2005 for a period of two months, which is April and May, 2005 in which there was delay of two days because rent was to be deposited on 15.5.2005. The petitioners are also challenging the order dt. 7.3.2006 Annexure-5 passed by the Addl District & Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur by which an appeal filed by the petitioner defendants under Sec. 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 was dismissed and order passed by the trial Court dt. 20.12.2005 was affirmed. As per facts of the case, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 preferred a suit for eviction against the petitioners defendants in which after filing written statement the trial Court determined the provisional rent on 20.2.2003 against which an appeal was preferred and the same was partly allowed by the appellate Court.

(2.) On 16.12.2004/15.1.2005, an application under Sec. 13(5) of the Act was filed by the non-petitioner plaintiffs in which it is pleaded that petitioner defendant had not deposited the rent, as per provisions of law, therefore, defence may be struck out. The petitioners filed reply to the said application in detail and submitted that on number of occasions the rent was deposited in defence in pursuance of the order passed on 20.2.2003 and monthly rent of April and May, 2005 was to be deposited on 15.5.2005 but it was deposited after delay of two days. The learned trial Court accepted the application filed by the non-petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 and struck down the defence vide impugned order dt. 20.12.2005 on the ground that delay cannot be condoned in view of the Supreme Court judgment.

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the trial Court on 20.12.2005 (Annex.3) an appeal was preferred but appellate Court vide impugned order dt. 7.3.2006 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the trial Court.