The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict compliance with the requirements of Order XV Rule 5 CPC and the statutory obligation of the tenant to regularly deposit the monthly amount due in the suit to save his defense from being struck off.

Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.

The petitioner is challenging the order passed by Judge Small Causes in SCC Suit No. 4 of 2008, dated 15.3.2011, whereby his defence was struck off under Order XV, Rule 5 CPC and the order dated 30.5.2015 passed by the revisional court affirming the said order. Judge Small Causes has recorded a categorical finding of fact that the admitted arrears of rent were not deposited by the petitioner on the first date of hearing. The court has noted, that the petitioner, who is defendant in the suit, was duly served on 8.4.2008 and he appeared before the court on 28.2.2009 and filed written statement on 28.2.2009. But he did not make any deposit, either of arrears of rent or of monthly rent. The deposits made under Section 30, after first date of hearing of the suit, were held to be illegal. The revisional court, while dismissing the revision, apart from affirming the findings recorded by Judge Small Causes, also took into consideration the plea of the petitioner that he had deposited the rent in the suit. The revisional court has held that all the challans, which the petitioner had brought on record by way of paper no. 30 (Ga), relates to the period after the filling of the written statement and striking off of the defence. These deposits were made by the petitioner at his own risk.

2. In such view of the matter, the revisional court held that the order of the Judge Small Causes striking off the defence is perfectly justified.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had deposited the rent in proceedings under Section 30 of the UP Act XIII of 1972 and the courts below, while passing the orders have not taken into consideration the deposits so made.

4. A perusal of the documents filed in that regard reveals that the order passed in proceedings under Section 30 is dated 31.8.2012. Thereby, the petitioner was permitted to deposit rent for the month of March, 2008 to May 2008 on his own risk. However, it appears from the pleas taken by the petitioner that even before passing of such order, he was making the deposits at his own risk. The suit for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment being SCC suit no.4A/5 of 2008 was filed by the respondent-landlord on 3.4.2008. The summon in the suit were served on the petitioner on 8.4.2008. He appeared in the suit on 28.2.2009 and filed his written statement on 28.3.2009. Thus even if date of filing of the written statement is assumed to be the date of first hearing, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have deposited the entire arrears by that date and to continue depositing monthly rent in the suit itself.

5. It is admitted to the petitioner that he had not paid rent to the landlord since March 2008 at the admitted rate of Rs.100/- per month. The petitioner claims to have deposited the arrears of rent and monthly rent in proceedings under Section 30, being misc. case no. 27/7/08. The defence in the suit was struck off on 15.3.2011 and by that time neither arrears of rent nor monthly rent was deposited in the suit. The petitioner contested the application of the landlord for striking off the defence, but made no representation in terms of Order XV, Rule 5 (2) CPC, before the Judge Small Cause Court.

6. The sole question for consideration is whether the tenant is entitled to the benefit of deposits made in proceeding under Section 30 in misc. case no. 27/7/08.

A Division Bench of this Court in Haider Abbas vs. Additional District Judge (Court No.3) Allahabad and others, 2006 (1) ARC 341 while considering the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 CPC and the decision of the Supreme Court in Atma Ram, (2005) 7 SCC 211 observed as follows: -

"The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Atma Ram (supra) emphasizes that if the tenant wishes to take advantage of the beneficial provisions of the Rent Control Act, he must strictly comply with the requirements and if any condition precedent is required to be fulfilled before the benefit