// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10478/2008 Prem Bihari S/o Nand Kishore Versus District & Sessions Judge, Baran and Others Date of Order ::: 22.09.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Counsel for petitioner #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction against the defendant-petitioner in the trial court wherein the provisional rent was determined, which was deposited in time but subsequently there was second default in making the payment of monthly rent, therefore, an application was filed by the plaintiff to strike down the defence of the defendant. The trial court rejected the application but the first appellate court allowed the appeal of the plaintiff and passed an order to strike down the defence of the defendant. Being aggrieved with the same, this writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the defendant. // 2 // The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the application was filed at a belated stage after recording the plaintiff's evidence, therefore, it was not proper on the part of the court below to consider the said application after recording the evidence in the case. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by the first appellate court. The delay in depositing the monthly rent has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner even during the course of arguments. The first appellate court has also considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nasiruddin Vs. Sita Ram Agarwal – (2003) 2 SCC 577, wherein their Lordships have held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable in the cases relating to Rent Control Act. In these circumstances, I find that the first appellate court was fully justified in passing the impugned order and the same does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. However, it will be open for the petitioner to raise all legal objections before the court concerned. // 3 // With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//