R.S.KEJRIWAL,J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 20.1.1994, passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (West), Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Civil Suit No. 824/1933, by which the said Court rejected the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay.
(2.) BRIEF relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff non -petitioners filed a suit for eviction interalia on the ground that the petitioner committed default in payment of rent. The trial Court vide its order dated 9.9.1991, determined the arrears of rent Under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, (for short the 'Act'). The petitioner could not deposit the same within the time granted by the trial court but deposited the same on 28.3.1992. He further committed defaults in payment of monthly rent. Later on the petitioner submitted an application praying that the delay in depositing the determined amount and monthly rent be condoned. The trial Court vide its order dated 20.1.1994, rejected the said application of the defendant petitioner. This order has been challenged in this revision. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the trial court in arbitrary way rejected the application submitted by the petitioner for condonation of delay. When a question was asked to the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to under which provision of law the application for condonation of delay was filed by the petitioner, counsel for the petitioner submits that the application was filed Under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. He submits that the question has already been decided by the Full Bench of this Court reported in Vishandas v. Savitri Devi. [AIR 1998 Rajasthan, 198.] From this judgment it appears that the following three questions were referred to the Full Bench. 1. Whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, can be applied in the matter of depositing of rent Under Section 13(4) of the Act, 1950? 2. Whether the Court has no power even in the interest of justice and equity to extend time beyond the limit prescribed Under Section 13(4) of the Act? and 3. Whether Section 13(5) of the Act, is directory? 4. The Full Bench answered all these three questions in affirmative. 5. Sub -sections (3), (4) and (5) of Section 13 of the Act read as under: 3. In a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (a) of Sub -section (1) with or without any of the other grounds referred to in that Sub -section, the court shall, on the first date of hearing or on any other date as the court may fix in this behalf which shall not be more than three months after filing of the written statement and shall be before the framing of the issues, after hearing the parties and on the basis of material on record provisionally determine the amount of rent to be deposited in court or paid to the landlord by the tenant. Such amount shall be calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid or was payable for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the month previous to that in which such determination is made together with interest on such amount calculated at the rate of six percent per annum from the date when any such amount was payable upto the date of determination. Provided that while determining the amount under this Sub -section, the court shall not take into account the amount of rent which was barred by limitation on the date of the filing of the suit.
(3.) THE tenant shall deposit in court or pay to the landlord the amount determined by the court under Sub -section (3) within fifteen days from the date of such determination, or within such further time, not exceeding three months, as may be extended by the court. The tenant shall also continue to deposit in court or pay to the landlord, month by month the monthly rent subsequent to the period upto which determination has been made, by the fifteenth of each succeeding month or within such further time, not exceeding fifteen days, as may be extended by the court, at the monthly rate at which the rent was determined by the court under Sub -section (3). (Emphasis supplied);