K.C.AGRAWAL,C.J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant's revision preferred against the judgment and order passed by the Munsif Ajmer City (West) Ajmer, rejecting his application dated 15 -4 -1989 for recalling the order dated 15 -10 -1985 whereby the defence of the Defendant -Petitioner was struck off.
(2.) THE plaintiff -respondent filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner on the ground of default wherein provisional determination -of rent was made on 19 -3 -1984. The defendant -petitioner did not deposit the rent within the stipulated time prescribed by Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Thereupon, the plaintiff respondent moved an application Under Section 13(5) of the Act. The rent was not deposited and consequently, defence was struck off on 15 -10 -1985. The order striking out the defence became final. On 15 -4 -1989, the defendant -petitioner moved an application for recalling the order aforesaid by which the defence had been struck off. The petitioner asserted in the application that the amount to be deposited by way of rent had been given by him to his servant, namely, Jai Kishan. The Petitioner went out of station and came back only after six months. It was thereupon that he learnt from the Advocate, who was appearing for him in the suit, about the non -deposit of rent, which resulted in striking off his defence by order dated 15 -10 -1985. He made an effort for getting the said order set aside by filing an appeal, but failed. The present application, as stated earlier, was filed on 15 -4 -1989 by asserting that the petitioner was not guilty having paid the rent to his servant who subsequently left his service. The petitioner claimed that for the negligence of his servant, he could not be penalised and he was entitled to condonation of delay in depositing the rent.
(3.) THE Court below rejected the application upholding the plea taken in the objection dated 7 -7 -1989 by the respondent. In this objection, the respondent has alleged that the ground for recalling the order was false, manufactured and afterthought. The court below held that there was no evidence on record that Jai Kishan was the servant of the petitioner and that he was not entitled to get the order dated 15 -10 -85 recalled.;