Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Matter is taken in the revised cause list.

2. None present on behalf of the respondents.

3. Heard Sri U.S. Sahai, counsel for the petitioner.

4. Facts in brief are that landlord/respondents filed a suit under the provisions of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1884, registered as SCC Suit No. 7 of 1989 for arrear of rent, ejectment in respect to the residential premises situated at Mohalla Ayodhya Nagar, Shahar Nawabganj, District Barabanki under the tenancy of the petitioner.

5. On 10.11.1993, an application under Order 15 Rule 5 has been moved on behalf of the respondents/landlord, (application No. Ga-49) allowed vide order dated 21.1.1994 (Annexure-6), therefore a revision (SCC Revision No. 6 of 1994 Ram Chandra Srivastava v. Rameshwar and others), has been filed dismissed by order dated 4.9.1998.

6. Further while dismissing the revision a categorical finding was recorded that petitioner is a tenant in the premises. So, the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC are applicable and he did not deposit the entire amount on the first date of hearing. On the basis of the said fact recorded the revisional Court on the basis of material on record held that order passed by trial Court is perfectly valid, directed to decide the matter.

7. Aggrieved by the orders dated 21.1.1994 and 4.9.1998, the present writ petition has been filed.

8. Sri U.S. Saha, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned orders under under challenge in the present writ petition submits that the orders passed by the Courts below are per se illegal and arbitrary as the provisions of order 15 Rule 5 CPC are not applicable in the present case, further the petitioner has already given Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh) in another matter keeping in view the said fact, defence of the petitioner/tenant has been wrongly struck off. So the impunged orders are liable to be set aside.

9. I have heard Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.

10. In the present case, admittedly, during the pendency of the SCC suit, the plaintiffs/respondents filed an application under Order XV Rule 5 CPC for striking off the defence since the deposit as contemplated under Order XV Rule 5 CPC had not been made by the defendant at or before the first date of hearing or during the continuation of the suit. In view of the said fact, the Judge, Small Cause Courts allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XV Rule 5 CPC and the Revision filed by the defendant for setting aside the said order was also dismissed.

11. On a careful analysis of the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 CPC it is seen that it is divided in two parts; (a) The first part deals with the deposit of the “entire amount admitted by him to be due” together with interest at or before the first hearing of the suit. (b) The second part deals with the deposit of “monthly amount due” which has to be made throughout the continuation of the suit.

12. It is, therefore, clear that Order XV Rule 5 CPC is in two parts. The first part deals with the deposit of the “amount admitted by him to be due” while the second part deals with the “monthly amount due” whether or not the tenant admits any amount to be due. Thus, in a case where the defendant denies the existence of landlord and tenant relationship, he may not be required to deposit the amount admitted to be due at or before the first hearing of the suit but he would still be required to deposit the “monthly amount due” within a week from the date of its accrual throughout the continuation of the suit because such deposit has to be made whether or not he admits any amount to be due.

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Atma Ram v. Shakuntala Rani, (2005) 7 SCC 211, had the occasion to examine whether the tenant defaulted in payment of rent if he had not paid or tendered or deposited the rent in the manner required by law and whether the deposit of rent under some other Act could be constru