( 1 ) THESE two connected civil revisions can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to these revision applications are that on 4th of March, 1976 opposite party Smt. Shakuntala Devi filed a suit against the applicant for ejectment and recovery of Rs. 2978. 50 as arrears of rent etc. and future mesne profits calculated at the rate of Rs. 95/per month.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff alleged that the defendant was the tenant of the accommodation in dispute and was liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 90/- per month. Over and above this, the defendant had to pay a sum of Rs. 15/- per month towards electricity charges and further a sum of Rs. 5/- per month as water-tax, The defendant was in arrears for the period 1st of October, 1973 to 30th of march, 1975 (the date on which the defendants tenancy is said to have been determined) and he did not pay the electricity charges for the period 1st of October, 1973 to 27th of September, 1974. Besides this, the water tax for the period 15th of July, 1972 to 30th of March, 1975 was also due against him.

( 4 ) THE suit was registered on 23rd of March, 1976 and 19th of May, 1976 was fixed for filing of written-statement and for final hearing, On 19th of May, 1976 the defendant moved an application (12-D) praying that the plaintiff be directed to give a copy of the plaint to him and that he may be allowed to file a written-statement within a period of two months. The trial court allowed the application and fixed 16th of August, 1976 for final hearing of the suit. On 4th of august, 1976 the plaintiff filed an application (17-C) mentioning that the defendant had failed to deposit the rent etc. , on the first date of hearing and prayed that the case be directed to proceed ex parte against him. The defendant (vide paper No. 18-C) objected to the request made by the plaintiff and 17th of september, 1976 was fixed for final disposal of the suit on which date the defendant filed his written-statement denying that any rent was due from him. He claimed that he was a tenant of the plaintiff on payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month only. He denied his liability to pay any electricity charge or the water, tax as claimed by the plaintiff. On 4th October, 1976 the plaintiff filed yet another application under Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that as the defendant had failed to deposit the entire rent due from him on or before the first date of hearing, his defence should be struck off. The trial court rejected the said application vide its order dated 25th of November, 1976. It observed that according to the defendant the rent up to May, 1976 had been deposited by him in proceedings under U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and that for subsequent months he had deposited in court a sum of Rs. 250/-by means of two tenders (five months rent calculated at the rate of Rs. 50/-per month ). Hence the full amount claimed by the plaintiff had been fully secured. If there was any delay, in making the deposits, it was liable to be condoned.

( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the trial court, the plaintiff went up in revision before the District Judge. The District Judge allowed the revision application vide his order dated 24th of May, 1977. He pointed out that according to Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of civil Procedure the defendant should have deposited the entire amount of rent or compensation for use and occupation admitted by him to be due at or before the first date of hearing and thereafter throughout the continuance of the suit he should continue to deposit regularly the amount of monthly rent or compensation for use and occupation at the rate admitted by him. He observed that while claiming that the entire rent stood deposited, the defendant sought to adjust a sum of Rs. 471. 19 being the costs of electric installation made by him which he was not entitled to do. It, therefore, followed that the defendant