Suraj Mal Vs. Ganghir Mal

civil procedure code, 1908 - sections 115 and 151--rajasthan premises (control of rent and eviction) act, 1950--section 13--limitation act, 1963--section 5--eviction suit--default in payment of provisional rent within period prescribed therein--application to condone delay disallowed by both the courts below--hence revision--held, section 5 does not apply to condone delay of the more than period prescribed--trial court rightly disallowed the application and struck out the defence--no interference warranted.;revision petition dismissed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - as the suit was also filed on the ground of default under section 13(l)(a) of the act, the trial court determined the provisional rent on 10.2.1999. but, petitioner defendant failed to deposit the provisional rent within the period allowed by the court......28.4.2001 passed by learned civil judge (jd) tonk on the applications under section 13(4) of the act and under section 5 of the indian limitation act have been rejected and the defence of petitioner- defendant has been struck out.2. the relevant facts, in short are that non-petitioner- plaintiff instituted a suit on 28.8.1996 in the trial court for eviction on twin grounds of default and bonafide reasonable personal necessity. petitioner-defendant contested the suit by filing written statement and denying the averments made in the plaint. as the suit was also filed on the ground of default under section 13(l)(a) of the act, the trial court determined the provisional rent on 10.2.1999. but, petitioner defendant failed to deposit the provisional rent within the period allowed by the court. he then moved an application under section 151 cpc r/w section 13(4) of the act and also moved an application under section 5 of the indian limitation act for condoning the delay in making the payment of provisional rent which was after hearing the parties disallowed and the defence of defendant against eviction was also struck out vide order dated 28.4.2001. the appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed vide impugned order and the order of the trial court was affirmed. hence, this revision.3. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the orders of the courts below.4. in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the hon'ble apex court in nasiruddin and ors. v. sita ram agrawal (1), section 5 of the limitation act, 1963 does not apply so as to condone the delay of more than the period prescribed therein and the courts below have, therefore, rightly disallowed the application of petitioner-defendant for condonation of delay in making payment of provisional rent and conse-quently striking out his defence against eviction. therefore, no interference in the impugned orders is warranted and called for.5. in this view of the matter, this revision.....