P.C.JAIN, J. - (1.) THE defendant-petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 115, CPC against the order of the learned Addl. distt. Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dated 19.8.1995 whereby the learned Addl. Distt. Judge dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order of the trial Court dated 5.12.1994 by which the learned trial Court allowed the application filed by the non-petitioner-plaintiff under Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act.
(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent against the petitioner-defendant. In that suit, the trial court, by its order dated 20.7.1988, determined provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the Act up to June 1988. The provisional rent was Rs. 1,425.38p. The defendant deposited the above rent on 26.7.1988. The petitioner was also to continue to deposit in Court or pay to the landlord month by month the monthly rent subsequent to the period up to which determination has been made, by 15th of each succeeding month or within such further time; not exceeding 15 days, as may be extended by the Court, at the monthly rate at which the rent was determined by the Court under Section 13(3) of the Act. However, the defendant moved an application under Section 13(5) of the Act on 17.10.1992 alleging therein that the plaintiff has not complied with the order passed by the Court and did not deposit the subsequent rent as per provisions of Section 13(4) of the Act. He, therefore, prayed that the defence of the defendant against eviction be struck out. A notice of the above application was given to the defendant- petitioner who filed reply and asserted that he has deposited rent and did not commit any default. He, therefore, prayed that the application filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. The trial Court, by its order dated 5.12.1994, held that the defendant committed several defaults in payment of rent. He, therefore, found that the plaintiff became entitled to seek order of the Court for striking out the defence of the defendant against eviction in terms of Section 13(5) of the Act. He, therefore, allowed the application of the plaintiff. The defendant felt highly aggrieved the above order and filed an appeal before the learned appellate Court. The defendant further submitted an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay. The contention of the defendant before the learned appellate authority was that the defendant never committed any default in payment of rent and he always deposited rent in advance. The whole trouble started on account of the misconception of the defendant that the rent deposited in advance before the determination of rent under Section 13(3) of the Act was not adjusted in determination of the provisional rent and that he was entitled to adjust the same for the subsequent period. Even after determination of rent, he continued to deposit the rent for many months at a time and he thought that he is depositing rent in advance. It was, therefore, clearly a bona fide mistake but the learned appellate Court was not persuaded to accept the explanation offered by the defendant. The appeal of the defendant was, therefore, dismissed by the impugned order.
(3.) I have heard learned course for the petitioner and the non-petitioner.;