Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to applications filed under Section 13-A (b) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1956.

KASLIWAL, J.

( 1 ) LEARNED single Judge, by order, dated Sept. 24, 1979, has referred this case to a larger Bench. The point on which the case has been referred is whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to Proceedings under Section 13-A of the Rajasthan premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). While referring the above point learned single Judge has sent the entire case for decision by the larger Bench.

( 2 ) BEFORE dealing with the legal question raised in this reference, we would mention the facts of the case. The plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for eviction against the defendant-non-petitioner on the ground of default in the payment of rent from Nov. 12. 1963 to Oct 20, 1964. The defendant deposited rent under Section 13-A of the Act No. 12 of 1965 and as such the said suit was dismissed. According to the plaintiffs the defendant again made defaults in the payment of rent from Nov. 4, 1970 to April 3, 1973 amounting to rupees 367. 00. as such the present suit for eviction was again filed on the ground of default. On May 29, 1973 the defendant moved an application under Sections 13 (4) and (5) of the Act and prayed for determination of rent due and for depositing the same. The trial Court on the same day passed an order that Section 13 (51 of the Act was not applicable and under Section 13 (4) of the Act there was no provision for determining the rent and as such the defendant was directed to deposit the rent according to law and time was given to deposit the rent up to July 15, 1973. The Legislature introduced Section 13-A by Rajas-than Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Ordinance 1975 on Sept. 29, 1975 replaced by Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Amendment Act. 1975 dated Feb. 13, 1976. Under Section 13-A (b) it was provided that in every such proceeding the Court shall, on the application of the tenant made within thirty days from the date of commencement of the amending ordinance notwithstanding any order to the contrary, determine the amount of rent in arrears up to the date of the order as also the amount of interest thereon at 6% per annum and costs of the suit allowable to the landlord, and direct the tenant to pay the amount so determined within such time, not exceeding ninety days, as may be fixed by the Court; and on such payment being made within the time fixed as aforesaid, the proceeding shall be disposed of as if tenant had not committed any default. The defendant filed an application under the above provision on April 19, 1976 but the same was dismissed by the Court on July 21. 1977 holding that the application, dated May 29. 1973 filed by the defendant had been disposed of and there was no application pending before the Court. The Court also held that because the application under Section 13-A was not filed within 30 days after coming into force of the amending ordinance on Sept. 29, 1975. the application was not maintainable. The defendant again filed an application under Section 13-A of the Act on July 21, 1977 stating that the defendant had moved an application on May 29, 1973 for depositing the rent and he had deposited the rent accordingly and he was under the impression that on account of the existing law, the Court was not competent to dismiss the suit and the suit was still proceeding. The defendant also moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for extension of time and condoning the delay. The trial Court dismissed the application by its order, dated Jan, 19, 1978 on the ground that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable and the defendant had not moved any application under S- 13-A of the Act within thirty days after coming into force of the amending Ordinance. The defendant went m appeal and the learned Additional District Judge, by his order, dated Aug. 6. 1979. allowed the appeal and granted the benefit of Section 5 f the Limitation Act to the defendant. The plai