LALCHAND Vs. SANT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application has been preferred against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur, dated May 28, 1977. In a suit for ejectment, inter alia on the ground of default in payment of rent and for recovery of arrears of rent, the trial Court passed an order under Section 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The overdue rent together with interest, as calculated by the trial Court, was deposited by the defendant-tenant within the time allowed. However, the rent for the month of Aug. 1976 which was payable up to Sept. 15, 1976 was not paid or deposited by the defendant-tenant within the aforesaid time but the same was deposited by him in the trial Court on Sept. 17, 1976 and thus there was a delay of two days in making the deposit under Section 13 (4) of the Act. The defendant-tenant filed an application on Dec. 16, 1976 praying that the delay of two days in making the deposit of rent for the month of Aug. 1976 be condoned. The trial Court by its order dated Jan. 4, 1976 rejected the application of the defendant for extension of time in making the deposit of rent for the month of Aug. 1976 and consequently directed that the defence of the defendant-tenant in respect of eviction be struck off. The defendant filed an appeal against the aforesaid order but the learned District Judge, Jodhpur by his order dated May 28, 1977 maintained the order passed by the trial Court. Hence this revision application,

(2.) Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act was substituted by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 (Rajasthan Ordinance No. 26 of 1975) which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette vide Notification dated Oct. 29, 1975 and which was subsequently replaced by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Amending Act No. 14 of 1976). The amended provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 13, which are relevant for the purposes of this revision petition, are as under:--

(3.) It is not contested before me that the trial Court enjoyed the power of extension of time fixed for payment of rent by a further period of 15 days, but the argument of the learned counsel for the opposite party is that the application for such extension of time should have been filed by the defendant- tenant within the period of 15 days from the expiry of the month of Aug. 1976. In other words, the application for extension of time should have been made in the present case, according to the learned counsel, on or before Aug. (sic) (Sept. ?) 15, 1976 and as no such application was made within the aforesaid time, the trial Court had no power to extend the time for payment of rent for the month of August 1976. I am unable to give such a restricted interpretation to the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act as they now exist. In my view, the provisions of Section 13 have been amended so as to remove the hardship to the tenant, where he is unable to deposit the rent month by month within the specified time on account of some genuine difficulties or unforeseen obstacles in his way or for reasons beyond his control and beneficial construction should be given to the amended provisions of Sub-section (4), in the light of the purpose for which the amendment has been introduced in Section 13 of the Act. It has not been laid down by the Legislature that the tenant should submit an application, within the period of fifteen days after the expiry of the month, if he desires an extension of the period specified for depositing the monthly rent, in Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act. In the absence of any restrictive provisions in that respect, the Court could extend the time for making the deposit at any time, subject to the only condition which is prescribed by the Legislature viz. that further extension could not be made for a period of more than 15 days, after the expiry of 15 days from the end of the month. Of course, it must be understood that it is not the right of a tenant to obtain such an extension but the Court has a discretion, which should always be exercised in a judicial manner,