- (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Sir Ganganagar dated August 28,1990 by which he has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated November 24,1989, striking out the defence of the defendant-petitioner. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may summarised thus.
(2.) THE planitiff-non-petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment on the grounds of default in payment of rent and necessity with the allegations, in short that the defendant-petitioner is in occupation and possession of the suit shop on monthly rent of Rs. 200/-, he has committed default in payment of rent and suit premises is reasonably and bona fide, required by him. THE trial court determined the amount of arrears of rent and interest at Rs. 6,665/- by its order dated June ,1,1988 and directed the defendant to pay the same within 15 days. It also directed that Rs. 200/- will also be deposited every month regularly. On December 20, 1988, the plaintiff-non- petitioner moved an application under Section 13 (5), Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') for striking out the defence on the ground that the determined amount has not been deposited so far and monthly amount of Rs. 200/- is also not being deposited every moth. On August 25, 1989,the defendant petitioner moved an application for condoning the delay occurred in depositing the said amounts. He also stated in it that he was ready to pay the same within three days. However, the determined amount was deposited on November 17,1989. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court allowed the application of the plaintiff-non- petitioner dated December 20,1988 and struck out the defence by its order dated November 24, 1989. An appeal was filed against it and it was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar by his order dated August 28,1990. It is contended by the learned counsel for the defendant- petitioner that learned lower courts have acted illegally and also with material irregularity in the exercise of their jurisdiction in striking out the defence without considering that the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause from depositing the determined amount within time, the learned lower courts have properly appreciated the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme court and this Court and they have proceeded on the assumption that provisions of Section 13 (5) of the Act are mandatory and not director. In reply, it is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner that the defendant - petitioner has utterly failed to put forward any explanation for not depositing in the court or paying to the plaintiff the determined amount even within there days as stated in his application dated August 25,1989, the amount was gethally deposited on November 17,1989, no explanation for this delay of about three months has even been put forward in the revision petition and the lower Court have not committed any jurisdictional error warranting interference in the revision petition. There is no substance in the revision petition. Admittedly, the amount of arrears of rent and interest was determined on June 1, 1988, application was moved on December 20, 1988 by the plaintiff-non-petitioner under Section 13 (5) the Act for striking out the defence, the defendant-petitioner moved an application on August 25, 1989 for condonation of delay and the determined amount was actually deposited on November 17, 1989. It is clearly stated in his application dated August 25, 1989 by the defendant- petitioner that he was ready to make the payment of the determined amount within three days the amount was admittedly deposited on November 17, 1989. There is noting on the record to indicate as to what prevented the defendant-petitioner from deposition the amount within three days from August 25,1989 as stated in his application, Even in the revision petition no explanation has been indicated for this delay of about three months in depositing the determined amount, From this fact alone, it can be said that there was wilful default in depositing the determined amount on the part of the defendant-petitioner. It has been held in Vishan Das V. Savitri Devi (1) at page 4 para 10 as follows :- It will also not render the Court powerless to extend the time if the tenant is able to satisfy the Court that he was prevented in not depositing or paying rent within time for sufficient cause, and therefore, the court is justified in not striking out the defence, otherwise it would be noting sort of miscarriage of justice. " In view of these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the lower Courts, have acted illegally or with material irregularity in exercise of their jurisdiction in striking out the defence.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. .;