Advocates:
['DR A A BHANSALI', 'MODH AKBARMODH AKBAR RICHA CHOUDHARY', 'MODH AKBAR', 'SURESH SHRIMALI']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

: O R D E R :

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6317/2009

(Kheta Ram Vs. Rajkumar Singhal)

Date of Order

::

21.08.2012

P R E S E N T

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

None present for the petitioner.

Mr. Mahesh Joshi, for respondent.

On last date of hearing, learned counsel for the

respondent invited attention of this Court towards the fact that

controversy involved in this case is squarely covered with the

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in WLC 2003 (1)

SC 293 (Nasruddin & Ors. Vs. Sita Ram Agarwal).

In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for

quashing the order dated 19.07.2007 (Annex.3) passed by Civil

Judge (SD) & Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mount Abu, Camp

Abu Road as well as the order dated 26.5.2009 passed by Addl.

District Judge, Abu Road, Sirohi passed in civil appeal No.17/07

by which the appellate court affirmed the order dated

19.07.2007 passed by trial Court by which the trial Court

rejected the application filed under Section 14 (4) of the Raj.

Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 and under

Section 5 of the Limitaion Act and struck off the opportunity of

defence.

2

Admittedly, the rent for December, 2006 was

deposited in the month of January, 2007 and according to

provisions of the Act of 1950 and judgment rendered by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in case of Nasruddin's case (supra), the limitation

cannot be condoned.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that

both the Court below, while relying upon the aforesaid judgment

rejected the application whereby learned trial Court struck off

the opportunity of defence for the reason that rent was

deposited after delay and there is no provision for condonation of

delay in depositing rent.

After persuing both the orders impugned, I am of the

opinion that there is no error in the orders impugned passed by

trial Court as well as appellate Court for which power under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India is required to be

exercised.

In view of above, this writ petition is hereby

dismissed.

(Gopal Krishan Vyas), J.

arun