Mandatory rent deposit timelines under a special tenancy law exclude general limitation relief for default.

Under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, the time fixed for depositing provisional rent under Section 13(4) was treated as mandatory, with only the limited extension expressly allowed by the statute; the court could not enlarge time beyond that limit or condone default in deposit. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was also held inapplicable because a rent deposit under the special Act is neither an appeal nor an application within Section 5, and the Act contained its own self-contained mechanism for compliance and default consequences. The governing principle is that a special statute with a mandatory timetable and specific sanction excludes general limitation relief unless it expressly or by necessary implication permits it.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the court had power under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 to extend the time for deposit of rent or condone default in deposit of provisional rent; (ii) Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied to a tenant's default in depositing rent under Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950.

Issue (i): Whether the court had power under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 to extend the time for deposit of rent or condone default in deposit of provisional rent.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the tenant to deposit the rent determined under Section 13(3) within the time fixed by Section 13(4), with only a limited extension not exceeding three months. The provision used mandatory language and also prescribed a consequence for non-compliance in Section 13(5), namely striking out of the defence. The Act did not confer any general discretion to enlarge time beyond the statutory limit. Earlier decisions under rent statutes with different wording were distinguished because those enactments either permitted extension of time in broader terms or used discretionary language.

Conclusion: The court had no power to extend the period beyond the limit stated in the Act or to condone the tenant's default in deposit of rent.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied to a tenant's default in depositing rent under Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950.

Analysis: Section 5 applies to appeals and applications filed beyond the prescribed period when sufficient cause is shown. A deposit required by Section 13(4) is not an appeal or application within the meaning of Section 5, and compliance with a court order under a special statute does not itself create a fresh application for condonation. Since the Rajasthan Act contained its own time-bound mechanism and did not provide for extension beyond the prescribed limit, the general provision in Section 5 could not be invoked.

Conclusion: Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to the tenant's default in depositing rent under Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was unsustainable, the tenant could not claim condonation under Section 5, and the landlord's appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute prescribes a mandatory time for deposit of rent, limits any extension of time, and provides a statutory consequence for default, the court cannot enlarge time or import Section 5 of the Limitation Act unless the special statute expressly or by necessary implication permits it.

---