Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to applications for extension of time under Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950.

1. :- The present revision application (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 570 of 1994) was filed by the defendant Sita Ram Agarwal impugning an order dated 20.1.1994 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) (West) Jaipur City, in Civil Suit No. 824 of 1993 whereby the application of defendant petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, stood dismissed. The plaintiff non-petitioners filed a suit for rent and ejectment against the defendant petitioner with the allegation that their late father let out a portion of the suit premises to the present defendant petitioner at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month, which was later on increased to Rs. 200/- per month. On 18.6.1965 their father executed a deed of gift in favour of the present plaintiffs. Since the defendant petitioner failed to pay rent from 1.8.1986 to 31.1.1987 and committed default in payment of rent, he was liable to ejectment.

2. In the written statement the defendant petitioner stated that the rent was only Rs. 80/- per month and the rent was paid to Fakhruddin, another brother of the present plaintiffs and as such he has not committed any default in payment of rent. It was further pleaded that the other sons of the original owner Daroga Nasiruddin not having been impladed as party to the suit, the suit was bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. The trial court by an order dated 9.9.1991 determined the arrears of rent payable to the landlords. However, the defendant petitioner who was financially in a distressed condition, could not deposit the determined rent within time. He deposited on 28.3.1992 Rs. 4720/-, and thereafter the rent from September, 1991 to 30.11.1991 amounting to .Rs. 240/- was deposited on 2.12.1991. The amount of rent from 1.12.1991 to February, 1992 amounting to Rs. 240/- was deposited on 21.2.1992 and rent from 1.6.1992 to 30.9.1992 amounting to Rs. 320/- was deposited on 29.7.1992. Thereafter, the rent for the month of October 1992 was deposited on 28.11.1992. On 9.11.1993 the defendant petitioner filed an application that due to shortage of money he could not pay the rent within time. He, therefore, prayed that the delay in depositing the rent might be condoned. The trial court by its order dated 20.1.1994 dismissed the application on the ground that the same was not filed within time. The defendant petitioner thereafter filed the present revisional application contending, interalia, that the trial court acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in dismissing the application of the defendant petitioner for condonation of delay. It was further contended that the law does not provide that the application for condonation of delay is to be filed before the expiry of the period of limitation. An application for condonation of delay could always be filed after the expiry of the period of limitation. The defendant petitioner was not in a position to arrange the money within time and, therefore, he could not deposit the rent within time. His defence was also struck off on 2.3.1994 and the application for condonation of delay was filed on 9.11.1993 and it was dismissed on 20.1.1994. It was further contended that the entire quantum of rent was paid to the plaintiffs prior to the defence being struck off and the court should have condoned the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was further averred that the court below committed an error of law in not condoning the delay. It was asserted that it is a principle of law that no party should be penalised unless his negligence is so gross that it could not be cured. The petitioner could not deposit the rent for reasons which was beyond his control and in such circumstances, the trial court ought to have condoned the delay in filing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was further averred that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit all the further rents in the bank account of the plaintiff non-petitioners and an