The defendants have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 20th September, 2000 passed by the Judge, Court of Small Causes by which the defence has been struck off under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') for the reason that the defendants did not deposit the entire amount due on the first date of hearing of the suit i.e. on 8th May, 1980. The petitioners have also sought the quashing of the judgment and order dated 28th January, 2003 by which the Revision filed by the petitioners for setting aside the aforesaid order was dismissed.

The Courts below have recorded a categorical finding of fact that on 8th May, 1980 which was the first day of hearing of the suit, the defendants did not deposit the amount due. The defence has, accordingly, been struck off under Order XV Rule 5 CPC.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that there was delay in deposit of the amount for the reason that the defendant was ill and that some amount was also deposited under Section 30 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted.

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 as 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 prescribed manner and continue to deposit any rent which he alleges to be due for any subsequent period in respect of such building until the landlord in the meantime signifies by notice in writing to the tenant his willingness to accept it.

(2) Where any bona fide doubt or dispute has arisen as to the person who is entitled to receive any rent in respect of any building, the tenant may likewise deposit the rent stating the circumstances under which such deposit is made and may, until such doubt has been removed or such dispute has been settled by the decision of any competent court or by settlement between the parties, continue to deposit the rent that may subsequently become due in respect of such building.

(3) The deposit referred to in sub-section (1), or sub-section (2), shall be made in the Court of the Munsif having jurisdiction.

(4) On any deposit being made under sub-section (1), the Court shall cause a notice of the deposit to be served on the alleged landlord, and the amount of deposit may be withdrawn by that person on application made by him to the court in that behalf.

(5) On a deposit being made under sub-section (2), the court shall cause notice of the deposit to be served on the person or persons concerned and hold the amount of the deposit for the benefit of the person who may be found entitled to it by any competent court or by a settlement between the parties, and the same shall be payable to such person.

(6) In respect of a deposit made as aforesaid, it shall be deemed that the person depositing it has paid it on the date of such deposit to the person in whose favour it is deposited in the case referred to in sub-section (1) or to the landlord in the case referred to in sub-section (2).

Order XV Rule 5 CPC

Striking off defence for failure to deposit admitted rent, etc.-(1) In any suit by a lessor for the eviction of a lessee after the determination of his lease and for the recovery from him of rent or compensation for use and occupation, the defendant shall, at or before the first hearing of the suit, deposit the entire amount admitted by him to be due together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and whether o