SYEDUDDIN Vs. WAHEED ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant (petitioner) challenged judgment of the District Judge in CMA No. 16/94 passed on 5. 8. 99 reversing the order dt. 8. 2. 94 of the learned Munsif Tonk in Civil Suit No. 236/91.

(2.) FACTS in a very narrow compass are thus. In a suit for eviction instituted by plaintiffs (respondents) on the ground of default in payment of rent to the suit shop, the trial Court under its order dt. 17. 4. 92 determined provisional rent u/s. 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the Act) and direction the tenant (petitioner) to deposit the determined rent of Rs. 1253. 75p. by 1. 12. 92 which was admittedly deposited on 28. 11. 92, including monthly rent of November, 1992, Rs. 125/ -.

(3.) ONCE I find that the appellate court has not at all held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable rather according to its categorical finding it is explicit clear that it has considered the reasons assigned by the tenant in his application for condonation of the delay in making late payment of monthly rent in dispute and while holding the reasons as insufficient & dissatisfactory for the delay, further held that the delay in question is not condonable, then in my considered view, only controversy remains for determination in this petition is as to whether the impugned order of the appellate court striking off the tenant's defence is sustainable or it does suffer from illegality with material irregularity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.