RASTOGI,J. - (1.) Learned Single Judge of this Court because of the two conflicting views expressed by different coordinate Single Benches of this Court on the question in regard to interpretation of Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short, 'the Act 1950') in the case of Gopal Singh v. Civil Judge(JD), Bijaynagar, District Ajmer & Ors., 2011(1) CDR 333(Raj.), and in Jagannath v. Jodha Ram, 1980 RLW 42 & Jamna Lal v. Kanhaiya Lal, 1982 WLN 751, referred the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for placing the question for determination by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.12.2013, in pursuant thereto, the matter has been placed before us.
(2.) The facts, in brief, necessary for examining the question raised for our consideration, are that the revision-petitioner/landlord filed a suit for eviction, inter alia, on the ground of bona fide necessity and default as the defendant/respondent has not paid the rent since 01.06.1992, continuously for six months before filing of the suit. After the notices of the suit came to be served upon the defendant/ respondent, written statement was filed and after taking note of the submissions made, the learned trial Court determined the provisional rent upto 30.11.1994 vide its order dated 24.11.1994 and also the monthly rent, which was to be deposited as per the provisions contained in Section 13(3) of the Act 1950. As alleged by the revision-petitioner, there was a default in making the payment of monthly rent by the defendant/respondents in the following months:- JUDGEMENT_17_LAWS(RAJ)6_2016.htm
(3.) Indisputably, no application was filed by the respondent-tenant seeking permission of the Court for extension of the prescribed time for depositing the rent within the extended period. There is no dispute that when the rent was not deposited on or before fifteenth day of succeeding month, as determined under sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act 1950, which is the requirement of Section 13(4) of the Act 1950, at that stage, an application was filed by the revision[ 3] DB CIVIL REVISION PET. 21/2014 petitioner/landlord on 08.11.2006 for striking off the defence of the respondent-tenant under Section 13(5) of the Act 1950. The reply to the application was filed but even at the stage of filing reply, it was nowhere prayed that the extended period within which the monthly rent has been deposited, may be regularised and at the same time, there was no separate application filed by the defendant/respondent in support thereof.;