https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169235 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. en-us Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:26:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169235 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169235