VISHANDAS Vs. SAVITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the learned single Judge referring the following questions for an authoritative pronouncement. Hon'ble the Chief Justice was pleased to constitute this Bench to decide these questions of law.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in Gopal Das v. Nathu Lal, AIR 1983 Raj 222 held that the Act is a special law and does not expressly exclude provisions of the Limitation Act. As S.5 of the Limitation Act has not been expressly excluded under the provisions of the Act, Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act would be applicable for applications filed u/s. 13A(b) in view of the S.29(2) of the Limitation Act. This authority was not brought to the notice of another Division Bench which decided the case Kriparam Ganeshi Lal v. Vijay Kumar Goyal 1986 Raj LR 236 wherein the Division Bench held that the court had no power to extend the time beyond three months. Sections 13(4) and 13(5) of the Rent Control Act are imperatively mandatory and not directory or permissive and, therefore, the trial court had no power to extend time but it should strike out the defence for not depositing the arrears of rent determined by the court u/s. 13(4) within the extended time.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to our notice Shyam Charan v. Dharam Das, AIR 1980 SC 587 where the Bench consisting of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, R.S. Pathak and O. Chinnappa Reddy while dealing with the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, held that where a tenant deposits the arrears of rent within time allowed by the court but during the pendency of suit for eviction and appeal thereto deposits the monthly rent a day or two beyond the prescribed date on some occasion, the court had discretion to condone the delay, and if the court granted extension of time for payment of monthly rent, the tenant would not be liable to eviction and his defence should not be struck out for non-payment of rent before the due date.