PUKH RAJ Vs. GIRDHAR NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent-plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned lower court for ejectment of the premises situated at Jodhpur on the ground of default under the provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. Under the provisions of the Act, the rent was provisionally determined on 11. 7. 90, wherein it was found that there were arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 4790/-, out of which the tenant i. e. petitioner-defendant already deposited & sum of Rs. 2750/- on 10. 8. 89 and, as such, the remaining amount of Rs. 2040/- was required to be deposited and the learned lower court directed the arrears to be deposited with thirty days. Petitioner-defendant deposited the amount of Rs. 2040/- alongwith subsequent monthly rent on 5. 10. 90. On 27. 2. 92, an application was moved by the petitioner-defendant under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act read with Sec. 13 (4) of the Act for condonation of delay in depositing the amount.

(2.) ACCORDING to the averments made in this revision petition, the arrears of rent of Rs. 2040/- was required to be deposited within thirty days from 11. 7. 90 when the order of provisional determination was made but the counsel for the petitioner- defendant remained under the impression that the amount was required to be deposited within ninety days and, as such, the amount of Rs. 2040/- alongwith amount of subsequent monthly rent was deposited on 5. 10. 90 i. e. within a period of ninety days. Thereafter, this mistake was detected but on account of illness of petitioner-defendant, the application for condonation of delay under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act could be filed in the last week of February 1992, which came to be rejected on 13. 10. 93 by the learned Munsif City, Jodhpur. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) IN my opinion, the petitioner-defendant has not been able to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay and, therefore, his application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act deserves to be rejected and the learned lower court has rightly rejected it.