SARWAN KUMAR Vs. KARAN SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant-petitioner has filed this revision petition under Sec. 115 Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 1-11-1994 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhilwara affirming the order dated 3-5-1994 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1 regarding striking out of the defence of the petitioner under Sec. 13 (5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, (No. XVII of 1950).

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the case.

(3.) The defendant-petitioner is the tenant of the plaintiff-non-petitioners. The plaintiff-non-petitioners filed a suit for eviction against the defendant-petitioner for ejectment and arrears of rent entirely on the ground of default allegedly committed by the defendant-petitioner. At the appropriate stage, the learned trial court determined the rent under Sec. 13(3) of the Act on 5-5-1988. There is no dispute that the defendant-petitioner deposited the rent within the extended time allowed by the court. The defendant-petitioner further deposited the rent for two months i.e. for May and June 1988 on 26-5-1988. However, the plaintiff-non-petitioners moved two applications purporting to be under Sec. 13(5) of the Act for striking out the defence of the defendant-petitioner in the aforesaid suit on his failure to comply with the order passed by the Court under Sec. 13(3) of the Act on 5-5-1988. The first application is dated 26-10-1989 and the second is dated 2-9-1993. In the first application, the plaintiff-non-petitioners alleged that the defendant-petitioner did not deposit the rent for the months of April, May and June 1988 whereas in the second application, allegation was made that the defendant-petitioner committed default in payment of rent for the month of July 1993. The defendant-petitioner contested the applications and prayed that as regards for the month of April 1988, he deposited the rent along with the rent as determined by the court on 5-5-1988. The rent for the remaining two months i.e. May and June 1988 was deposited on 26-5-1988. Regarding the default in payment of rent for the month of July 1993, the defendant-petitioner submitted that on account of severe illness, he was prevented from moving out and he had to discontinue his business as well There was, therefore, reasonable explanation for his failure to deposit the rent. He further submitted that he has been depositing the rent regularly for so many years.