MANGI BAI Vs. JEEWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.

(2.) Learned counsel made three submissions before me. His first contention was that in the application submitted by the defendant tenant before the first appellant Court under Section 13A(b) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as amended by the Amending Act No. 26 of 1975 the tenant did not express his willingness to pay interest and costs and as such the said application was not in accordance with the provisions of Sections 13A(b) of the Act. It is admitted by the learned counsel that in pursuance of the application submitted by the tenant before first appellate Court within the period allowed by Section 13A(b) of the Act, the first appellate Court determined the amount of arrears of rent, costs and interest by its ordered dated January 20, 1976 and the amount so determined has been deposited by the tenant, inclusive of the amount which he had previously deposited. Thus the mere non-mention in the application submitted under Section 13A(b) of costs and interest does not amount to express of rent, costs and interest and was also paid. It cannot, therefore, be held that the application submitted by the tenant in these circumstances, was not in accordance with law.

(3.) The second submission made by the learned counsel was that the lower appellate Court had no jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the amount determined under Section 13A(b) of the aforesaid Act. What happened in the present case was that the first appellate Court determined the amount in accordance with the provisions of Section 13A(b) of the Act on January 20, 1976 and granted 30 days' time to the tenant to make a deposit of the amount so determined by him. Thereafter on February 19, 1976 an extension was granted by the first appellate Court to the tenant to make a deposit within a further period of 30 days Section 13A(b) of the Act provides that the amount determined by the Court in respect of arrears of rent, costs and interest may be deposited by the tenant within such time not exceeding 90 days, as may be fixed by the Court. It is not disputed that the amount was deposited by the tenant in the present case within a period of 90 days of the date of the order determining the amount under the said provision. It is also not in dispute that the said amount was deposited within the period allowed by the first appellate Court. But the only contention is that the said Court could not have extended the time having once fixed a period of 30 days. In my view this contention has no force inasmuch as the Court fixing the time under Section 13A(b) of the Act had the jurisdiction to fix such time upto a period of 90 days from the date of the order of determination and if a lesser period has been fixed in the first instance then also the same Court had the power to extend the time, but the total period as extended should not exceed the period of 90 days prescribed by Section 13A(b) of the Act. In this view of the matter the second contention also fails.