AMARESH KU.SINGH,J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsels for the parties in Civil Suit No. 129/85 Doongar Singh v. Amar Singh. The learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Udaipur City (South), Udaipur vide his order dated 20th January, 1990 rejected the application of the defendant for condonation of delay in depositing of rent.
(2.) FEELING aggrieved by the order dated 20th January, 1990 the defendant filed an appeal which was disposed of by the Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division) No. 3, Udaipur vide order dated 28th February, 1995. The learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments of the lower Courts the defendant has filed this Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The facts and the circumstances of the case may be summarised as below : According to the petitioner, suit premises were taken on rent by late Shri Amar Singh who was the defendant in the case and who is represented by Smt. Ganeshi Devi and others. Non -petitioners instituted a suit against. Amar Singh for eviction. During the pendency of the suit provisional rent was determined under Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. On 9th February, 1988 non -petitioners filed an application before the trial Court praying that the defence of the petitioner (defendant) be struck out because he had not deposited the rent for the month December, 1986 in time and in place of depositing the rent on or before 15th January, 1988, deposited the same on 3rd February, 1987. In reply the petitioner stated before the lower Court that he had given the rent for the month of December, 1986 to non -petitioner No. 1 Dungar Singh but no receipt was given to him by Dungar Singh and when Dungar Singh did not give any receipt upto 31st January, 1987, as per advise given by his counsel he deposited rent in the Court on 3rd February, 1987. It was also stated by the petitioner (defendant) in his reply that rent for the month of December, 1986 was paid to Dungar Singh in presence of Shankerlal and Chandmal and that he did not commit any default in payment of rent. On 4th July, 1988 the petitioner (defendant) moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying that delay in deposit of rent be condoned in view of the facts and circumstances stated by him. Dungar Singh (non -petitioner No. l) denied that rent for the month of December, 1989 had been paid to him.
(3.) THE learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the story about payment of rent to Dungar Singh was not reliable and was false and that default in payment of rent had been committed by not depositing the rent for the month of December, 1986 within time and that he delayed the deposit of rent from 17 -18 days without seeking permission of the Court. Consequently, he rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and struck out the defence in view of the provisions of Section 13(5) of The Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction), Act. The appeal which had been filed in the Court of learned District Judge, Udaipur was transferred to the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Udaipur and the appeal was dismissed with cost by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Udaipur, vide order dated 28th February, 1995.;