Strict compliance with the deposit requirements of Order XV, Rule 5 CPC is necessary, and deposits made under other provisions may not be considered for the required deposit.

( 2 ) SCC Suit No. 8 of 2003 was filed by the plaintiff-landlord with the allegation that the defendant was a tenant of the shop in dispute on a monthly rent of Rs. 13. 75 since the time of late Narsingh Das Agrawal, husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 7; that the defendant did not pay the rent as a result of which a registered notice dated 13th May, 2003 was sent to the tenant for determination of the tenancy and for making payment of arrears of rent but the defendant tenant did not vacate the premises and nor did he make the payment of arrears of rent despite service of the said notice.

( 3 ) A written statement was filed in which it was stated that the rent was being 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) since the time of the original landlord and the said application was registered as misc. Case No. 70 of 1995.

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the plaintiffs 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. The defendant filed a reply to the aforesaid application asserting that the rent was being deposited in Misc. Case No. 70 of 1995 in favour of the landlord narsingh Das Agrawal and no rent was due. It was further asserted that the plaintiffs were not the landlords since the landlord was Narsingh Das agrawal with whom there was contract of tenancy.

( 5 ) THE Judge, Small Causes 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 dismissed. The Revisional Court has observed that the rent was being deposited by the defendant under section 30 (1)of the Act in Misc. Case No. 70 of 1995 even after 25th April, 1997 when the defendant had acquired knowledge of the death of Narsingh Das Agrawal and that the tenant did not dispute who the landlord was since the amount was not deposited under section 30 (2) of the Act but was deposited under section 30 (1)of the Act. It has accordingly dismissed the Revision.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since there was a dispute as to who was the landlord, the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5 CPC will not be attracted because in such a case the defendant does not admit that there was any amount due to him and in support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in Jayant Kumar Chakraborty v. Xth additional District Judge, Varanasi and others, 2004 (55) ALR 520 Chhedi Ram (D) and another v. Om Prakash Srivastava 2003 (52) ALR 452 and Kunwar Baldevji v. XIth Additional district Judge, Bulandshaha and others. 2003 (51) ALR 758 He further submitted that the deposit had been made under section 30 (1) of the Act and the said amount could have been adjusted towards the deposits to be made under Order XV, Rule 5 cpc.

( 7 ) IN the present case it is not in dispute that on the first date of hearing the tenant did not deposit the entire amount admitted by him to be due together with the interest. It is also not in dispute that the monthly amount due was also no deposited within a week from the date of its accrual during the continuation of the suit.

( 8 ) IN order to appreciate the controversy involved in this petition it would be necessary to place the relevant provisions of section 30 of the Act as also the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5 CPC as applicable to the State of U. P. The same are as follows :

"section 30. Deposit of rent in Court in certain circumstances.- (1) If any person claiming to be a tenant of a building tenders any amount a rent in respect of the building to its alleged landlord and the alleged landlord refuses to accept the same then the former may deposit such amount in the pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document