VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Under Section 13(4) of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, the Court does not have the power to either extend the period to deposit the rent or to condone the default in depositing the rent. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is also not applicable where there is a default in depositing rent by tenant under Section 13(4) of the Act.

JUDGMENT

As regards applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in the matter of default in deposit of rent as also interpretation of the word shall occurring in the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to the Act , for the sake of brevity), a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 21.3.2002 referred the matter to a three Judge Bench observing:

"....Looking to the importance of the questions and the conflicting views taken in the judgments of this Court, we deem it proper that the case is heard by a Bench of three Judges."

2. That is how the matter is before us.

3. Before adverting to the aforementioned questions, the factual matrix involved in the matter may be noticed. The appellant herein is the landlord in respect of the suit premises and the respondent is a tenant therein. Allegedly, the respondent did not pay rent for the period 1.8.1986 to 31.1.1987 wherefor upon service of the legal notice, a suit for possession and arrears of rent was filed which was marked as Civil Suit No. 824 of 1993.

4. The learned Trial Judge in terms of the provisions contained in Section 13(3) of the Act determined the provisional rent @Rs.80/- per month and by an order dated 9.9.1991 directed the respondent to deposit the arrears as also current rent in court. Admittedly, the respondent did not deposit the same within the period specified therein. The appellant herein filed an application purported to be under Section 13(5) of the Act; whereafter on or about 9-11-1993 the respondent filed an application for condonation of delay. By reason of an order dated 20-1-1994, the said application for condonation of delay was dismissed, inter alia, on the ground that the same was not filed within time. A revision application was thereafter filed by the respondent questioning the legality or validity of the said order, inter alia, on the ground that there is no law barring filing of an application for condonation of delay after expiry of the period specified for deposit of rent.

5. It appears that a Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Gopal Dass & Others vs. Nathumal Baraya [AIR 1983 Raj. 222] had held that an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the matter of deposit of rent in terms of Section 13(4) of the Act was maintainable. The said decision was rendered having regard to Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1975, in terms whereof Section 13-A was inserted whereby and whereunder the court was obligated to determine the amount of arrears of rent up to the date of the order as also the amount of interest thereon at the rate of 6 per annum and cost of the suit allowable to the landlord and direct the tenant to pay the amount so determined within such time, not exceeding ninety days as may be fixed by the court and on such payment being made within the time fixed as aforesaid, the proceedings were to be disposed of as if the tenant has not committed any default.

6. A learned Single Judge of the High Court at the hearing of the revision application filed by the respondent was, however, of the view that as the Full Bench in Gopal Dass s case (supra) was concerned with interpretation of Section 13-A(b) of the Act; the question as regards applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the matter arising under Section 13(4) of the said Act requires consideration by a larger Bench. The learned Single Judge was further of the view that the decision of the Full Bench in Gopal Dass s case (supra) required reconsideration also on the question as to whether the court has any power to extend the time beyond the period prescribed under Section 13(4) of the Act having regard to the fact that the said decision based on various judgments of this Court relating to different Rent Control statutes of various States which were not in pari materia with the provisions of the Act.

7. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said observations of the learned single Judg