Non-compliance with deposit requirements under Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. and Section 30 of the U. P. Urban Buildings Act led to the allowance of the plaintiff's application for striking off the defence.

DILIP GUPTA, J.-, J.

( 1 ) THE defendant of S. C. C. Suit No. 6 of 2002 has filed this petition for setting aside the order dated 17th December, 2003 passed by the judge, Small Cause Courts whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under order XV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the c. P. C. ) for striking off the defence was allowed. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the order dated 21st January, 2008 by which the revision filed by him under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 for setting aside the aforesaid order was dismissed.

( 2 ) THE records of the writ petition indicate that the aforesaid S. C. C. Suit no. 6 of 2002 had been filed by the plaintiff-respondent for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent with the assertion that the defendant was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 360/- per month plus house tax and water tax in all amounting to rs. 430/- per month; that the defendant had not paid rent with effect from 31st december, 1997 and that by the notice dated 16th April, 2002 received by the defendant on 19th April, 2002 the tenancy was terminated and arrears of rent was demanded but the defendant did not pay the arrears of rent and nor did he vaca,te the premises.

( 3 ) THE summons were served upon the defendant and the written statement was ultimately filed on 26th October, 2002. The plaintiff moved an application 30-C on 26th April, 2003 under Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. with a prayer that the defence be struck off as the defendant had failed to comply with the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. The defendant filed his objections to the aforesaid application and asserted that the rate of rent was Rs. 100/- per month only; that the rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month had been paid to the plaintiff up to 31st March, 2002 though no receipts were issued; that entire arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month up to 31st July, 2003 had been deposited under section 30 (1) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the act pursuant to the application filed by the defendant on 23rd August, 2002 and the re-ceipts were filed. It was, therefore, prayed that the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. be rejected.

( 4 ) THE Judge, Small Causes Courts as well as the Revisional Court have observed that the defendant had not deposited the amount as contemplated under Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. and so the application filed by the plaintiff has been allowed.

( 5 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that on the first date of hearing the amount was not deposited and nor was the monthly amount regularly deposited within a week from the date of its accrual and that it was only on 19th November, 2003 that the defendant deposited the rent in the suit for the period from 1st April, 2002 to 31st December, 2003. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the amount deposited under section 30 (1) of the Act should have been taken in to consideration and in any case even if the amount was deposited in the suit on 19th November, 2003, the Court should have condoned the delay in making the deposits but the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. should not have been allowed and in support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the decision of the supreme Court in Mangat Singh (M/s.) Trilochan Singh Thr, Mangat Singh (dead) LRs. and others v. Satpal, 2003 (53) ALR 708 and of this Court in Bhawani Vastrya bhandar, Ballia and another v. Smt. Sahodra Devi (since deceased) and others, 1996 (28) ALR 536 and mahendra Nath Tandon v. Vlth Additional District Judge, Kanpur nagar and others. 1997 (30) ALR 22

( 7 ) IN the present case it is not in dispute that on the first date of hearing the tenant did

Click Here to Read the rest of this document