MOHINI KAPUR, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff petitioners filed a suit for eviction against the non-petitioners on 2. 11. 1982, and according to him the rent from. 1. 1. 1981 to 31. 12. 1982 had not been paid. THE rate of rent was Rs. 11/-p. m. On 15 3 1984, the trial court viz. M. J. M. Chirawa, passed an order, which may be paid to be an order under Sec. 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). By this order, he has made the following directions, (1 ). Rent at the rate of Rs. 11/- p. m. till the date of filing of the suit be deposited within 15 days. (2 ). THE rent after this period and uptil 1. 3. 1984, be deposited within one month. (3 ). THEreafter rent be deposited by the first of every month.
(2.) IT was also ordered that if any rent had been deposited then it was not necessary to deposit again. On the objection of the counsel for the defendant, this order was immediately modified and the rent of future-months was allowed to be deposited by the 15th of the next month. The tenant non-petitioner moved an application on 24. 4. 1984, along-with an application saying that his counsel did not inform him about the direction of the Court to deposit the rent and as such he could not deposit the rent in time and he should be allowed time uptil 30. 4. 1984, to deposit the rent. The rent was deposited on 27. 4. 84. The plaintiff landlord objected to the extension of time as was requested by the tenant and the trial court by order dated 27 7. 1984, relying upon 1973 W. L. N. 539, RLW 1973, 615 and AIR 1974 Rajasthan 49, held that the provisions of Section 13 (4) of the Act were mandatory and the Court has no power to condone the delay in deposit or rent and as such the defence against the eviction has to be struck off. The tenant preferred an appeal against this order and it came to be decided by the Additional Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu by his order dated 19. 10. 1985 and this appeal was accepted holding that under Section 13 (3) of the Act a period of three months could be given to a party to deposit the rent and it was within the power of the Court to extend time uptil this limit. It was also observed that 15 days could be extended for the deposit of monthly rents as has been provided in Section 13 (4) of the Act. Considering this provision the delay in deposit of the rent was condoned. Against this decision the plaintiff landlord has come up in this revision. The points urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that under Section 13 (3) and 13 (4) of the Act, the Court has no power to extend the time for depositing rent. It is also contended that if the Court proceeds to extend the time or condone the delay, there have to be adequate reasons for doing the same and in the present case the reasons given are not sufficient. According to him, there has been a default in depositing the rent, which was to be deposited under Section 13 (3) and there was a default in the deposit of rent for the month of March, 1984 also as it was not deposited by 15th of April but was deposited on 27th April, 1984. His last contention is that the rent under Section 13 (4) of the Act has to be deposited month by month and it is not open to the tenant to deposit the rent in advance. The petitioner has placed reliance upon Rampal Vs. The Manager, Sasta Sahitya Press Ltd. (1 ). This is a decision on the law as it stood prior to the amendment made in 1975 and referring to Section 13 (4) as it then was, it was observed that the tenant has to deposit all arrears of rent with interest on the first date of hearing or he must make an application to the Court on the first day of hearing for fixing time to deposit arrears of rent. The Court is not bound to fix time on such application, but in case it exercises its discretion in favour of the tenant and fixes time within which the tenant is allowed to deposit the arrears of rent the time so fixed or subsequently extended by the Court must not exceed two months from the first date of hearing. If the tenant deposits the arrears of rent as specified in sub-section (4) of Section 13 within the time so fixed by the court, his defence against eviction is not be struck out, but if he fails to do so, his defence has to be struck out under Section 13 (6 ). The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the lower appellate court has placed reliance on RLW 1982, 176 and RLW 1980, 42, but these decisions are not applicable to the present case as in these cases the due date, when the rent was to be deposited in Court, fall during the Court Vacations and it was not possible for the tenant to deposit the rent at the specified time. According to him, the tenant cannot be allowed extension of time in deposit of rent in view of these decisions which are not applicable.
(3.) IT has been argued that when a certain period has expired then there can not be an extension of the same and the application for extension of time should have been moved before the time fixed for deposit of rent, expired. As against this the learned counsel for the non-petitioner has contended that the delay in deposit of rent, determined under Section 13 (3) as well as delay in deposit of the rent for the month of March, 1984, both fall within the permissible limits, which a Court can extend, for depositing the rent. According to him the application for the extension of time can be moved either prior to the expiry of the time within which the rent was to be paid or even after it. For this purpose, he has placed reliance upon Lal Chand vs. Sant Ram (2 ). In this case it has been specifically held that an application for extension of time for the payment and condonation of delay may be filed within the period specified in sub-sec. (4) of Section 13 or even after that and the court can even pass an order on such application for extension of time either before the expiry of the period for deposit or thereafter. The only restriction, however, is that an extension in the period for fixing monthly rent cannot be more than 15 days. In Dwarkadas V. Smt. Dropadi (3), it has been held that when the Court has ample power to extend the period to deposit the monthly rent upto 15 days, the time can be extended by the Court taking an over all view of the facts and circumstances placed by the defendant before the Court - "it was held that the provisions of Sec. 13 (4) being a beneficial provision should be liberally construed in favour of the tenant. There is no expression as such in this provision that time can be extended only when sufficient cause is shown, which means that the power of extension has to be exercised liberally, so much so that even if the tenant does not deposit the rent in time on account of forget fulness, the Court has power to extend upto 15 days. " ;