N. K. MEHROTRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision under Section 25 of the Small Causes Courts Act against the order dated 9. 5. 1995 passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Bahraich, allowing the application of the plaintiff for striking off defence in S. C. C. Suit No. 7 of 1988,

( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff filed a suit for eviction after determination of the lease of the defendant and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages with the allegations that there was an agreement between the parties and the defendant had paid Rs. 3,000 as an advance and the shop in question was let out at the rate of 300 per month for a period of five years. The advance amount was to be adjusted in the rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per month and Rs. 250 per month was to be paid every month as rent. The defendant had adjusted the advance amount during the period from 1. 8. 1980 to 1. 8. 1985 but the shop was not vacated. According to the agreement again an agreement was entered between the parties for a period of five years from 1. 8. 1985. At this time Rs. 15,000 was taken as an advance of rent. The rent was paid upto 15. 8. 1986 and the defendant did not pay rent from 16. 8. 1986 to 6. 11. 1987. The defendant denied the agreement and contended that the rent was Rs. 300 per month but it was agreed that the defendant will pay Rs. 250 per month and he will adjust Rs. 15,000 given as an advance at the rate of Rs. 100 per month after deducting it from the monthly amount due. The defendant contended that from 1. 4. 1987 onwards the rent due was at the rate of Rs. 250 per month and he had remitted this rent at the rate of Rs. 250 per month through the money order, which was refused by the plaintiff.

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff moved an application 57 ga for striking off the defence under Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. The copy of this application is Annexure-A-5. It is stated in this application that the defendant is not depositing the admitted rent regularly. Therefore, the defence should be struck off. In the application for striking off the defence a detail of those five months was given for which the rent was not deposited in the Court. In the annexed affidavit, it was stated that the defendant has not deposited the entire admitted rent due on the date of first hearing and he has been depositing the rent Rs. 100 less than the admitted amount of the monthly rent. The defendant filed objection and specifically stated that he has already deposited the rent of those months for which the plaintiff alleges the default.

( 5 ) A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the learned trial court has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him properly. First of all, I point out the application No. 57c, which is annexure-A-5 on the record. In this application, the plaintiff has alleged that the rent of the month of May, 1992, June, 1992, December, 1992, March, 1994 and April, 1994 was not deposited. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that there is no finding of the trial court in the impugned order as to whether these five months rent have been deposited or not? There is no finding that this rent was if, deposited, then it was deposited within time or beyond time and there is no finding that whatever amount was deposited by the defendant during these months was a proper deposit or not? and if, it was deposited few days late then, whether it amounts to default in regular deposit of monthly rent or not? In the absence of the categorical finding on the allegations made in the application No. 57c the defence of the defendant cannot be struck off.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the opposite party has pointed out the affidavit filed in support of the application for striking off the defence and in this affidavit it is stated that the defendant had not deposited the entire admitted rent on the first date of hearing and in every month, he has been depositing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document