Hon'ble TRIVEDI, J.—The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, wherein the petitioner has prayed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 11/01/2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City (East), Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Civil Suit No. 145 of 2002, and to set aside the order dated 15/09/2011 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Civil Regular Appeal No. 46 of 2005, whereby the Appellate Court had dismissed the application of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay occurred in filing the appeal, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

2. The short facts, giving rise to the present petition, are that the respondent-plaintiff had filed the application under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') seeking fixation of the standard rent in respect of the suit premises occupied by the petitioner as a tenant. The said application was registered as Civil Suit No.145 of 2002 before the Trial Court. The said suit was resisted by the petitioner-defendant by filing the written-statement. It appears that after the evidence of the respondent-plaintiff was over, the matter was fixed for evidence to be produced by the defendant-petitioner on 22nd July, 2004. However, on that day, no witness was produced on behalf of the petitioner-defendant, and therefore the Trial Court had granted one more opportunity to the petitioner, subject to the payment of cost of Rs.100/-, and fixed the matter on 28th August, 2004. On the said date, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted “No Instructions” application, and therefore the Court passed the order to proceed against the petitioner exparte. The Trial Court thereafter considering the evidence adduced by the respondent-plaintiff, decreed the said suit vide the judgment dated 11/01/2005, fixing the standard rent of the said premises at Rs. 6,100/- per month, and further holding that the respondent-plaintiff shall be entitled to the said standard rent from the date of filing of the suit.

3. According to the petitioner, he came to know about the said judgment and decree dated 11/01/2005 passed by the Trial Court when he received the notice from the Advocate of the respondent on 01/08/2005, calling upon him to make payment of the arrears of rent. The petitioner thereafter obtained the certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 11/01/2005, and filed the appeal being No.46 of 2005 along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court vide the impugned order dated 15/09/2011 dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and also dismissed the appeal vide separate order of the same date holding that the Appeal was time barred. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant.

4. In response to the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel Mr. Sudesh Bansal for the respondent as regards the maintainability of the revision petition, the learned counsel Dr. P.C. Jain for the petitioner submitted that the remedy of filing revision has been provided under Section 22 of the said Act, and it is only the procedure for such revision application, which is required to be followed as per Section 115 of the CPC. According to him, there is a difference between the issue of maintainability of the revision application, and the issue of the powers of the Court to interfere in the revision petition. In this regard, the learned counsel Dr. Jain has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Sardarlal & Ors. vs. Umraolal Gupta, 1982 RLR 42. He further submitted that if the impugned order would have been passed in favour of the petitioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document