DALELA, J. - (1.) THE respondent-plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned lower court for ejectment of the premises situated at Jodhpur on the ground of default under the provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. Under the provisions of the Act, the rent was provisionally determined on 11. 7. 90, wherein it was found that there were arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 4790/-, out of which the tenant i. e. petitioner-defendant already deposited & sum of Rs. 2750/- on 10. 8. 89 and, as such, the remaining amount of Rs. 2040/- was required to be deposited and the learned lower court directed the arrears to be deposited with thirty days. Petitioner-defendant deposited the amount of Rs. 2040/- alongwith subsequent monthly rent on 5. 10. 90. On 27. 2. 92, an application was moved by the petitioner-defendant under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act read with Sec. 13 (4) of the Act for condonation of delay in depositing the amount.
(2.) ACCORDING to the averments made in this revision petition, the arrears of rent of Rs. 2040/- was required to be deposited within thirty days from 11. 7. 90 when the order of provisional determination was made but the counsel for the petitioner- defendant remained under the impression that the amount was required to be deposited within ninety days and, as such, the amount of Rs. 2040/- alongwith amount of subsequent monthly rent was deposited on 5. 10. 90 i. e. within a period of ninety days. Thereafter, this mistake was detected but on account of illness of petitioner-defendant, the application for condonation of delay under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act could be filed in the last week of February 1992, which came to be rejected on 13. 10. 93 by the learned Munsif City, Jodhpur. Hence this revision petition. A perusal of the order of the learned lower court would show that the petitioner-defendant mistakenly got the impression that he has been given ninety days time for depositing the arrears of provisional rent. The learned lower Court observed that Izfroknh }kjk fnukad 27-9-92 dks izlrqr ekeys ds rf; la{ksi esa bl izdkj gs fd U;k;ky; us fnukd 11-7-90 dks cdk;k fdjk;k fu/kkzfjr fd;k Fkk o fdjk;s dks cdk;k jkf'k 30 fnu esa U;k;ky; esa tek djokus ds vkns'k fn;s Fks ysfdu 30 fnu dks le;kof/k Hkwy ls /;ku ugha fn;s tkus ds dkj. k fudy xbz o Izfroknh bl [;ky esa Fkk fd mls jsuv duvksy vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 134 esa crkbz xbz 90 fnu dh vof/k feyh gsa** Thus, in the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner-defendant had not stated that his counsel was under the impression that the amount was required to be deposited within ninety days. It seems that in the said application, it was stated that the period of thirty days, granted by the learned lower court, had expired by inadvertence and he was under the impression that ninety days have been granted to him for depositing the amount of rent. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant has also admitted at bar that in the application for condonation of delay before the learned lower court, it was not contended that the counsel for the petitioner defendant was under the impression that the amount was required to be deposited within ninety days. Thus, there is a difference between the stand taken by the petitioner-defendant before the learned lower court and this court. Before the learned lower court, the petitioner-defendant did not state that his counsel was under the impression that ninety days have been provided for depositing the rent. There, the petitioner-defendant has stated that by mistake, the arrears of rent could not be deposited within thirty days because he was under the mistaken impression that ninety days have been given for depositing the rent. Here, before this court, in the revision petition, it has been contended that the counsel for the petitioner-defendant was under the impression that ninety days have been given for depositing the the rent. This inconsistency in the stand taken by the petitioner goes to indicate that he has not correctly stated the cause or reason for the delay in depositing the rent. It seems that the cause for the delay in depositing the rent arose from the negligence of the petitioner-defendant and not from the bonafide mistake. A mistake arising from the negligence cannot be said to be bonafide and cannot be a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The fact that the petitioner-defendant was negligent is borne-out from the fact that he is not speaking the truth. In the revision petition, he has contended that the mistake was on the part of his counsel as the latter was under the impression that the rent was required to be deposited within ninety days. On the other hand, before the lower court, he contended that it was on account of his own mistake that he could not deposit the rent within thirty days time, given by the court as he himself was under the impression that ninety days have been given to him for depositing the amount of rent. Obviously, both the stands cannot be true because they are contradictory and inconsistent to each other. The negligence on the part of the petitioner-defendant is also revealed from his another conduct. According to the order of the learned lower court, the, petitioner-defendant was sick from 1. 11. 90 to 30. 11. 91 but he has moved the application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act on 27. 2. 92. The fact that he moved the application on 27. 2. 92 goes to indicate that he moved the application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act more than ten months after he had recovered from his ailment. This conduct of the petitioner- defendant also indicates that he has been negligent in the matter.
(3.) IN my opinion, the petitioner-defendant has not been able to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay and, therefore, his application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act deserves to be rejected and the learned lower court has rightly rejected it. Thus, there is no force in this revision petition and it is hereby dismissed. .;