MADAN LAL Vs. RAMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - In a suit for ejectment by a landlord on the ground inter-alia of defaults in the payment of rent, the trial court passed an order under sub-section (3) of Section ) 3 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on April 26, 1977 determining the amount to be deposited by the tenant under the provisions of Section 13 (3) of the Act. The trial court had determined the rent upto March 31, 1977. The rent for the month of April, 1977 was to be paid by the tenant under the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act upto May 15, 1977, but the same was deposited in court on June 28. 1977. The landlord plaintiff, therefore, applied to be trial court for striking off the defence of tenant against eviction. The trial court dismissed the application, while the first appellate court allowed the plaintiff's appeal vide its order dated November 29, 1982 and directed that the defence of the defendant-tenant against eviction be struck off.

(2.) IN this revision petition two arguments have been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. His first submission is that after the order under Section 13 (3) of the Act was passed by the trial court on April 26, 1977, the tenant filed an appeal on the ground that rent for the month of January, i 972 should also have been included in the determination made under Section 13 (3) of the Act while determination had been made in respect of rent from February 1, 1972 upto March 31, 1977 by the trial court. The appeal filed by the tenant was allowed on October 28, 1978 and he was allowed to deposit rent for the month of January, 1972 together with interest thereon. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the trial court under Sect ion 13 (3) of the Act stood modified by the order passed by the appellate court on October 28, 1978 and as such even if a default was made in depositing the rent for the month of April, 1977, the same could have been deposited by the tenant upto November 13, 1978 when the period of 15 days from the date of the appellate order expired. This argument prevailed with the trial court, but the appellate court did not accept the same. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the court could extend the period of payment of rent for the month of April, 1977 by such further time not exceeding 15 days as providing in sub section (4) of Section 13 of the Act and as the trial court was closed for summer vacation from May 29, 1977 to June 26, 1977 and the tenant had submitted the tender for payment of rent on the opening day in the trial Court i. e. on June 27, 1977, the rent was actually deposited on June 28, 1977 on the basis of the tender filed on June 27, 1977. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the trial court would have exercised discretion vested in it under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act in a judicious manner, the rent for the month of April, 1977 should be deemed to have been deposited within time, if the period of payment for making requisite deposit be extended by a period of 15 days, which was permissible under Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act.

(3.) IN Lalchand Vs. Santram 4) it was held that the court has complete discretion in the matter of extension of time for depositing or making payment of monthly rent during the pendency of the suit.