GUPTA J—This revision application has been preferred against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur dated May 28, 1977. In a suit for ejecment interlia on the ground of default in payment of rent and for recovery of arears of rent, the trial court passed an order under sec. 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) The over-due rent together with interest, as calculated by the trial court, was deposited by the defendant-tenant within the time allowed. However, the rent for the month of August, 1976 which was payable upto September 15, 1976 was not paid or deposited by the defendant tenant within the aforesaid time but the same was deposited by him in the trial court on September 17, 1976 and thus there was a delay of two days in making the deposit under sec. 13(4) of the Act. The defendant tenant filed an application on December 16, 1976 praying that the delay of two days in making the deposit of rent for the month of August 1976 be condoned. The trial court by its order dated January 4, 1976 rejected the application of the defendant for extent ion of time in making the deposit of rent for the month of August 1976 and consequently directed that the defence of the defendant-tenant in respect of eviction be struck off The defendant fied an appeal against the aforesaid order but the learned District Judge, Jodhpur by his order dated May 28, 1977 maintained the order passed by the trial court. Hence this revision application,

2. Sub-section (4) of section 13 of the Act was substituted by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 (Rajasthan Ordinance No. 26 of 1975) which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette vide notification dated October 29, 1975 and which was subsequently replaced by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) (Amend-ment) Act, 1976 (Amending Act No 14 of 1976). The amended provision of sub-section (4) of section 13, which are relevant for the purposes of this revision petition, are as under:—

"(4) The tenant shall deposite in court or pay to the landlord the amount determined by the court under sub-section (3) within fifteen days from the date of such determination, or within such further time, not exceeding three months, as may be extended by the court. the tenant shall also continue to deposit in court or pay to the landlord, month by month the monthly rent subsequent to the period upto which determination has been made by the fifteenth of each succeeding month or within such further time not exceeding fifteen days, as may be extended by the court, at the monthly rate at which the rent was determined by the court under sub-section. (3)."

prior to the enactment of the present provisions of sub section (4) of section 13, the tenant was bound to make payment of rent, during the pendency of the suit, month by month, by the 15th of the next succeeding month. But the present privisions of sub section (4) of section 13 vests a discretion in the court, to extend the time specified under that provision for depositing the monthly rent, by allo-wing the defendant to make payment or deposit the over-due rent within 15 days more after the expiry of 15 days from the end of the month, but no further. Thus according to the present provisions of sub-section (4) the tenant should ordinarily make the payment or deposit of rent, during the pendency of the suit, month by month within 15 days of the expiry of the month, but the Court has a discretion to enlarge such period by a further period not exceeding 15 days. This provision, which has been newly inserted, permitting the Court to extend the time for payment or deposit of rent month by month for a maximum period of 15 days, beyond the period of 15 days from the expiry of the month, was introduced for the puposes of remowing hardship in genuine cases.

3. It is not contested before me that the trial court enjoyed the power of extention of time fixe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document