RADHEY SHYAM SONI Vs. SATYANARAIN KEDAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a tenant in the suit filed by the non-petitioner plaintiff for eviction and is aggrieved against the order passed on 10. 5. 1996 by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 257/95 for striking off the defence of the petitioner which order stands confirmed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 52/96 vide its order dated 26. 10. 1996.

(2.) THE non-petitioner plaintiff had filed a suit for eviction on the ground of default of rent in which suit the trial court had passed the order under Section 13 (3) and 13 (4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter called as the Act) when the provisional rent was determined. THE trial court had passed the order on 8. 8. 1988. THE rent was alleged to be due from November 1985. Under the provisions of the Act, the rent is to be deposited within 15 days of the determination of the rent, which period can be extended by another three months by the court. THE petitioner defaulted in complying with the statutory provisions of law. He did not deposit the rent, rather moved an application on 31. 8. 1988 for extension of time of two months for depositing the rent. However, no order was made on such application. THE rent was deposited on 15. 11. 1988 with a delay of about more than 80 days upto the period of July 1988. Rent for the period of August 1988 was deposited by one day's delay and so was the position in regard to the rent for the month of October 1988. THEre was 5 days delay in depositing the rent of November 1993. Even though the rent is said to have been deposited with the delays as mentioned above, the respondent non-petitioner plaintiff had moved an application under Section 13 (5) of the Act for striking off the defence of the petitioner for the default caused by him. Section 13 (5) of the Act postulates that if the rent is not deposited within the time as stipulated or extended time, the defence of the tenant would be struck off.

(3.) THE counsel for the respondent opposed the petition with the submission that there was no application moved by the petitioner for condonation of delay and even the application moved on 31. 8. 1988 is presumed to have been allowed, in that situation too, the maximum time asked for by the petitioner for extension was of two months and, therefore, even the period of two months had expired on 23. 10. 1988 and the rent was deposited after about 3 weeks even of this deemed extended time. THE question which arises to meet the argument of the counsel for the petitioner is whether the enabling provisions of the Act to the effect that the time can be extended by another three months is extended automatically or a proper application is to be moved for extension of the said time and the orders of the competent courts are required to be obtained or not. In my opinion, the statutory period for deposit of the rent after determination is 15 days and in case the rent is not deposited within a period of 15 days, the tenant is at liberty to move an application for extension of time and the rent is to be deposited within the extended time by the court. A bare reading of the provisions of Section 13 (3), (4) and (5) makes it clear that it is the court which is to extend the time on the request having been made by the tenant and in case no request is made, it cannot be dee- med that the time automatically stands extended. However, if the tenant is unable to deposit the rent, he is always at liberty to move an application for condonation of delay by satisfying the court that there were sufficient reasons for not depositing the rent and the court is to apply its mind to the facts of the case. It has been held by a Full Bench of this Court that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act does apply even for depositing of rent as has been held in the case of Sita Ram Agarwal Vs. Nasiruddin & Ors. (3)