Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The petitioner is Aggrieved by the order dated 20.04.2010, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bijaynagar, District Ajmer, whereby the learned civil Judge had dismissed the petitioner's application filed under Section 13(3)(4) of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction), Act 1950 ('the Act', for short) read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act for extension of time, and had allowed the application filed by the plaintiff-non-petitioners under Section 13 Sub-section 5 of the Act and had struck off the defence of the petitioner. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 12.07.2010, passed by the Additional District and Session Judge, Beawar, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and has confirmed the order dated 20.04.2010.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the non-petitioner No.3, Mool Chand, had filed a civil suit for eviction against the petitioner under the Act on three grounds : firstly, the petitioner had defaulted in paying the rent; secondly, he was not using the shop for the last six months; thirdly, he had sublet the shop to another person. Mool Chand had also pleaded that there was arrears of rent of Rs.1899/- outstanding against the petitioner. During the pendency of the suit with the death of Mool Chand, Shiv Kumar was substituted as his legal representative. The petitioner filed his written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. During the pendency of the suit on 28.04.2000 under the provisions of Section 13(3) of the Act, the learned trial court determined the provisional rent and directed that the said rent be paid within the statutory period. On 20.10.2000, the non-petitioners moved an application under Section 13(5) of the Act claiming that since the petitioner has failed to deposit the provisional rent within the statutory period, therefore, his defence should be struck off. Surprisingly, although the non-petitioners had moved their application on 20.10.2000, the petitioner did not file his application for extension of time and for condonation of delay till 19.03.2010. It is in his application dated 19.03.2010 filed under Section 13(3)(4) of the Act read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act that the petitioner admitted that he had deposited the rent for the month of April, 2000 not on 15.05.000 but on 19.05.000. Thus, he admitted that there is a delay of four days. Moreover, he admitted that the arrears of rent were deposited on 14.06.2000. Therefore, this delay should be condoned. However, after hearing both the parties vide order dated 20.04.2010 the learned Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, but accepted the application filed by the non-petitioners and struck off the defence of the petitioner. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, he filed an appeal before the learned Judge. However, vide order dated 12.07.2010, the learned Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 20.04.2010. Hence, this petition before this Court.

3. Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that in the order dated 20.04.2010, the learned Civil Judge had not specified the period within which the amount determined under Section 13(3) of the Act had to be deposited. Secondly, Between 10.05.2000 and 18.05.2000, the petitioner had fallen ill to the extent that he could not move. Therefore, he had deposited the rent for April, 2000 on 19.05.2000. Hence, there is a delay of only four days in depositing the said amount. Thirdly, relying on the cases of Lalchand vs. Santram (1978 WLN 133 = 1978 RLW 119) and Raj Kumar & Anr. vs. Lal Chand & Anr. (1987(2) WLN 962 = 1987 RLW 697), the learned counsel has contended that an application for extension of time and for condonation can be filed at any time. Thus, the petitioner was justified in filing the application for condonation after the period for depositing the amount was over. Therefore, the r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document