The court has the discretion to not strike off the defence even in the absence of a representation by the tenant if it finds good reason for not doing so.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act which has been preferred against the order dated 19th December. 1997 passed by the IInd additional District Judge, Moradabad rejecting the defence of the defendant-revisionist under order XV, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code.

( 2 ) HEARD Sri A. K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist and Sri K. K. Arora, learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite parties.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff-opposite panties have instituted a S. C. C. Suit No. 1 of 1993 against the defendant-revisionist for his eviction from the disputed accommodation and for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profit. Admittedly, the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and the defendant-revisionist was the tenant of the house at the monthly rent of Rs. 1. 400. The suit was contested by the defendant-revisionist and it is alleged that after the service of the Illegal notice, the defendant-revisionist besides sending the reply to the notice also remitted a sum of Rs. 4,200 as being rent due through cheque. In the written statement filed by the defendant-revisionist, he has. Inter alia, denied his liability to pay the rent and also alleged that no rent was due as he has deposited a sum of Rs. 1,400 towards the rent even for that period for which no rent was due and with interest in compliance of the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5. C. P. C. According to the defendant-re vision 1st the rent for the period 15. 1,1997 to 24. 2. 1997 could not be deposited even though the defendant-revisionist has paid the money to his counsel and his clerk regularly for depositing the same in the Court. According to the defendant-revision 1st, he filed an application on 26. 11. 1997 with a tender seeking to deposit the rent but the office gave a wrong report. He further filed his representation/application dated 5. 12. 97 with an affidavit praying for condonation of delay in deposit the rent which has fallen due.

( 4 ) THE Court below after taking into consideration the respective submissions of the parties came to the conclusion that a perusal of the entire deposits of rent made by the defendant-revisionist since 1993 goes to show that the deposits have not been made by the defendant-revisionist regularly on due dates and that the defendant-revisionist has also not moved any application for extension of time to deposit the rent and that the defendant-revisionist has not at all paid the rent for the period 15. 1. 1997 to 14. 2. 1997. Accordingly, the defence of the defendant-revisionist was rejected. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite parties has supported the findings of the court below.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist urged that the defend ant-revision 1st could not be made to suffer on account of the fault of his counsel or his clerk when they failed to deposit the rent for the period 15. 1. 1997 to 14. 2. 1997 and that the Court below has not considered the deposit of amount by the defendant-revisionist as well as the application filed for condonation of delay on 5. 12. 1997. It was further urged that the order passed by the Court below rejecting the defence of the defendant-revisionist is too harsh and therefore cannot be sustained.

( 6 ) AT the very outset, it may be pointed out that the purpose of enacting the provisions of Rule 5 in Order XV was not to give lever to the landlord to get a tenant punished for insignificant lapses. The purpose was merely to ensure that the dues of the landlord are properly secured and he can get his rent regularly even though the litigation may continue. The matter came to be considered in Bimal Ghana Jain v. Sri Gopal Agarwal, 1981 ARC 463. In which it was held that the provisions of Order XV. Rule 5. C. P. C. are discretionary and the Court has power not to strike off defence even in the absence of a representation by tenant if on facts and circumstances already existing on