SHIV KUMAR SHARMA,J. - (1.) APPLICATION under Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the Act) filed by the landlord-petitioner was allowed by the trial court and defence against eviction of the tenant non-petitioner was ordered to be struck off. The tenant preferred appeal challenging the order which was allowed by the appellate court. Against the said order present action for filing the revision has been resorted to.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY rent for the period of Falgun Sudi 2051 to Asad Budi 2052 amounting to Rs. 3600/- was deposited by the tenant on July 22, 1995. An application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was filed for condoning the delay in depositing the rent on the ground that tenant was ill. The trial Court disallowed the application but the appellate Court allowed the application and observed that justice cannot be denied to the tenant on account of technical hurdles. In Vishan Das v. Savirti Devi, 1988(1) RLR 1, the Full Bench of this Court has considered the following three questions :- (i) Whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be applied in the matter of deposition of rent under Section 13(4) of the Act 1950 ? (ii) Whether the court has no power even in the interest of justice and equity to extend time beyond the limit prescribed under Section 13(4) of the Act ? (iii) Whether Section 13(5) of the Act is directory ? While dealing with question No. 1 this court has held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be applied in the matter of deposit of rent under Section 13(4) of the Act. As regards question No. 2, this court has laid down that the court has power in the interest of justice and equity, to extend time beyond the limit prescribed under Section 13(4) of the Act and while dealing with question No. 3 this court has held that Section 13(5) is directory and not mandatory.
(3.) IN M/s. B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd. v. Birendra Kumar Bhowmick, AIR 1987 SC 1010, the Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 has observed :- "This court has consistently taken the view that if the court has the discretion not to strike out the defence of the tenant committing default in payment of deposit of rent as required by a provision of any Rent Restriction Act, then the court surely has the further discretion to condone the default and extend the time for payment or deposit and such a discretion is a necessary application of the discretion not to strike out the defence." ;