The main legal point established in the judgment is that the tenant is obligated to deposit the admitted rent and the monthly amount due under Order XV, Rule 5, CPC, irrespective of the denial of the landlord-tenant relationship due to the absence of an allotment order.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff-landlord for setting aside the order dated 17th May, 1999 passed by the learned 1st additional District Judge, Bareilly by which the Revision filed by the tenant under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 for setting aside the order passed by the Judge, Small Causes Courts striking off the defence under Order XV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as cpc), was allowed.

( 2 ) THE facts as they emerge from the records of the writ petition indicate that after the tenancy of the defendant was determined and a demand was made for payment of arrears of rent by the notice sent under section 106 of the transfer of Property Act, the petitioner-landlord filed SCC Suit No. 101 of 1996 for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. It was asserted in the plaint that the defendant was a monthly tenant of Rs. 200/- of the shop of which the plaintiff was the landlord; that the rent was not paid by the defendant w. e. f. 1st August, 1995 in spite of several demands; that the notice dated 7th August, 1996 under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served upon the defendant on 8th August, 1996 but since the premises were neither vacated nor arrears of rent were paid, the suit was filed.

( 3 ) THE tenant filed a written statement mentioning therein that the defendant was given the shop on monthly rent of Rs. 100/- in 1982; that the provisions of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the act) were applicable to the building in dispute as it was old construction and that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant since the shop had not been allotted to the defendant by the rent Control and Eviction Officer under section 16 of the Act.

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the Suit the landlord filed an application under Order XV, Rule 5, CPC with a prayer that the defence of the defendant be struck off as the amount contemplated under Order XV, Rule 5, CPC was not deposited. It was stated that neither had the defendant deposited the entire amount admitted by him to be due along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and nor had the defendant deposited the regular monthly amount due within a week of its accrual throughout the continuation of the suit.

( 5 ) THE defendant filed his objection to this application. It was not the case taken up by the defendant that he had deposited the aforesaid amount as contemplated under Order XV, Rule 5, CPC but what he contended was that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant in the present case since he had come into possession of the premises without any allotment order.

( 6 ) THE Judge, Small Cause Courts allowed the application filed by the landlord under Order XV, Rule 5, CPC. The Revisional Court, however, in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Nutan Kumar and others v. IInd additional District Judge, Banda and others, 1993 22 ALR 437, came to the conclusion that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant since the tenant had come into possession of the building without any allotment order. It, accordingly, held that in such a case the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5, CPC would not apply and, therefore, the defence could not be struck off.

( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the written statement the defendant had stated that the shop was let out to the defendant by the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- but the defendant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties only because there was no allotment order issued by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under section 16 (1) (a) of the Act in favour of the defendant. The Revisional Court has accepted this contention of the defendant in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Nutan Kumar and others, (supra) but this decision was subsequently reversed by the Suprem