HIRALAL Vs. HARIBUX AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is directed against the order dated 28.5.74 of the Additional District Judge, Churu, confirming in appeal the order of the Munsif, Ratangarh, dated 17-5-73 striking cut the defence of the petitioner against eviction under Section 13(6) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) Haribux non-petitioner instituted a suit for ejectment and for arrears of rent on 25-2-72 in the Court of Munsif Ratangarh against Hiralal tenant and Roopsingh defendant No. 2. as surety. The eviction was ought inter alia on the ground of default under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act On the first, date of bearing the petitioner defendant asked for sometime to deposit the arrears of rent. The learned Munsif by order dated 21-3-72 allowed him time to deposit Rs. 1383/90 paise on or before 22.4.72. He also directed him to deposit rent for he subsequent months from 22.4.72 on wards within 16 days of each month. The defendant paid in the Court Rs. 1100/- on 22.4.72. For the balance of Rs. 283/90 paise he again prayed for time and the learned Judge allowed him one month a time. Within that time the said balance was paid. No dispute has been raised with respect to these payments. According to the plaintiff the rent for subsequent months was not paid in time. It was neither deposited in accordance with the requirement of Section 13(4) nor in terms of the order passed by the learned Mansif. It is admitted between the parties that the month of tenancy started from Shukla 9 of every month. The controversy that bad arisen is with regard to the payments for the months Baisakh Shukla 9 (corresponding to 22-4-72) to Sravan Shukla 8 (corresponds go to 18-7-72) The tenant deposited Rs. 120/- by tender No. 47 on 12.7.72 for the period 22-5-72 to 21-7-1972. No payment appears to have been made for the month Baisakh Shukla 9 to Sravan Shukla 8, that is, 22-4-72 to 21-5-72. On 21-7-72 the plaintiff submitted an application that the rent has not been paid in accordance with Section 13(4) of the Act and as such the defence against eviction be struck out. On 21-8-72 the defendant submitted an application, that on 22-6-72 sent the amount of rent by money order but it was not accepted. The courts were closed in June, 1972, Though the Courts reopened after the summer break on 2-7-72 but then he fell sick end as such he could not deposit the amount on 2-7-72 and could get the rent of two months deposited on 12-7-72. He prayed that in the circumstances of the case the delay be condoned. It was then found that the rent for the period 22-4-72 to 20-5-72 was not deposited at all. The defendant then made an application on 1612 72 that the sum of Rs. 120/- deposited by him by tender No. 47 dated 12-7-72 should be treated to have been deposited for the period from 22-4-72 to 19-6-72. By another tender No. 74 on 7-8-72 the amount of Rs. 60/- was found to have been deposited from Asadh Shukla 9 to Sravan Shukla 8. The learned Munsif found that the defendant had not deposited the amount of rent according to the requirement of Section 13(4) of the Act. He, therefore, struck out the defence against eviction. The matter was taken up in appeal and the learned lower appellate court elaborately discussed the law and held that it was not within the power of the Munsif to extend time. He found that the defence was rightly struck out under Section 13(6) of the Act.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, while conceding that there has been a delay in making deposit, has strenuously urged that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the provisions of this Act. He placed reliance on Section 29(2) of the Act. There is no manner of doubt that the provisions of Section 5 were applicable to the matter relating to appeal and revision. But the contention that it applies to the matter relating to deposits under Section 13(4) is, in my opinion, fallacious. Under Section 13(1) no decree can be passed against a tenant so long he is ready and willing to pay the rent. There are certain exceptions contained in certain clauses of Section 13(1). If the court is satisfied on one of the grounds then the landlord can seek eviction of the tenant. Section 13(1)(a) deals with the default on the part of the tenant. If the tenant has not paid or tendered rent for a period of six months he is liable to be evicted. If the court is satisfied a decree can be passed against him Section 13(4) is again a protection to a tenant on the ground of default as envisaged under Section 13(1)(a), the legislature gives an additional opportunity to the tenant to deposit arrears of rent with interest on the first date of hearing. He is also required to deposit rent for the subsequent months within 15 days of each month. Thus Section 13(4) is an additional benefit to the tenant. If a tenant wants to avail protection he must deposit the rent strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 13(4). It is not a matter where the benefit can be extended on any reason howsoever good it might be. In my opinion Section 13(4) does not contemplate extension of time by the court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Mrs. Gouri Bose v. Sukumar Ghose,1971 RCJ 703 and Sikharani Debi and Ors. v. Nibaran Kumar Das, 1974 RCJ 425 Suffice it to say that the Calcutta decisions have no application to the case on hand. The law in Calcutta empowers the court to extend time. Section 17(2A) and (2B) are reproduced below: