1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10545/2007 Bhagwan Sahay Versus The Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Alwar & Others Date of Order :: 12th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Jitendra Mitrucka for the petitioner Mr. Manish Gupta for the respondents no. 3 and 4 BY THE COURT: Admit. Mr. Manish Gupta appears for respondents no. 3 and 4. The respondents no. 1 and 2 are only formal parties, therefore, their service is dispensed with. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for eviction in respect of rented premise against the defendant-petitioner, wherein provisional rent was determined. The tenant failed to deposit the monthly rent, as directed by the court below, therefore, an application was filed by the plaintiff to struck-off the defence of the defendant. The delay in depositing the amount of rent was admitted, therefore, the application of the 2 plaintiff was allowed and defence of the defendant was struck-off. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred and first appellate court vide its order dated 1st November, 2007 partly allowed the appeal. The order striking off the defence of the defendant on the ground of default in depositing the amount of monthly rent was upheld but it was clarified that the defendant will have a right to defend his case on the other grounds of eviction. Being aggrieved with the said order, the defendant has preferred this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was sufficient cause for not depositing the amount of monthly rent, therefore, the delay in depositing the amount of monthly rent should have been condoned by the courts below and in not doing so, the Courts below have committed an illegality, whereas the learned counsel for the respondents contended that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable in respect of matters relating to Rent Control Act and delay cannot be condoned as Section 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nasruddin & Others Versus Sita Ram Agarwal reported in 2003 (2) SCC 577, 3 therefore, the trial court was right in passing the impugned order and first appellate court has rightly upheld the same. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The controversy involved in the present case is fully covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nasruddin's case (surpa) and in view of it I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK