Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—I have heard Sri Rahul Sahai for the revisionist and Sri Swapnil Kumar for the plaintiff-respondent.

2. The instant revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act against the order dated 9.9.2013 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Etah in S.C.C. Suit No. 06 of 2007 by which the defence of the defendant-revisionist has been struck off under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent instituted S.C.C. Suit No. 06 of 2007 against the defendant-revisionist for possession of the accommodation in suit after eviction of the defendant-revisionist as also for arrears of rent. On 14.10.2007, the defendant-revisionist put in appearance in the suit. Neither the admitted dues nor the monthly admitted rent was deposited before the Court where the S.C.C. Suit No. 06 of 2007 was pending. Accordingly, the plaintiff-respondent applied for striking off the defence, under Order XV Rule 5 CPC. The defendant-revisionist contested the application on ground that he had been depositing the rent under Section 30 (1) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in Misc. Case No. 13 of 2003 where the rent from December, 2002 up to May, 2011 has been deposited, accordingly, the defence ought not to be struck off.

4. The Court below took the view that the under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the admitted rent due is not only to be deposited on the first day of hearing of the suit before the Court concerned but the monthly rent is also to be deposited month to month by the end of the 7th day from when it becomes due. The Court below relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Haider Abbas v. Additional District Judge and others, 2006 (1) ARC 341, wherein it was held that while depositing the amount on or before the first hearing of the suit, the tenant can deduct the amount deposited under Section 30 of the Act but the deposits of the monthly amount thereafter through out the continuation of the suit must be made in the Court where the suit is instituted for eviction and recovery of rent and the amount, if any, deposited under Section 30 of the Act cannot be deducted. Relying on the aforesaid decision, the Court below took the view that as admittedly the defendant had not deposited the monthly rent before the Court, as and when it fell due, the defence was liable to be struck off. Accordingly, by the impugned order, the defence of the defendant was struck off.

5. Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the revisionist relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bimal Chand Jain v. Sri Gopal Agarwal, AIR 1981 SC 1657, submitted that it is not obligatory to the Court to strike off defence and that the Court has to consider the facts and circumstances of the case so as to take a decision whether to strike off the defence or not. Several other authorities were also placed, which also propounded the same view. It was submitted that on 11.11.2010, the revisionist had filed an application before the Court below for permitting him to deposit the rent in the Court where the suit was pending but no order was passed on the said application. It was, thus, submitted that the Court below had failed to consider the circumstances which justified that there was no need to strike off the defence.

6. In reply to the above submission, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submitted that as admittedly the defendant-revisionist had not deposited the monthly amount before the Court concerned and the amount deposited, under Section 30 of the Act, cannot be adjusted against the amount required to be deposited on monthly basis, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, the order passed by the Court below cannot be said to be against the provisions of law so as to justify int