The tenant must strictly comply with the requirements of the Rent Control Act, and the rent must be deposited in the court where it is required to be deposited under the Act.

Suneet Kumar, J.

In brief, the facts of the case is that the respondent/landlord filed a suit being Suit No. 14 of 2011 before Small Cause Court at Varanasi for arrears of rent and eviction from the shop in question. The tenancy was determined by notice dated 1 May 2008 which was served upon the petitioner on 6 May 2008. The petitioner/tenant contested the suit by filing written statement on 16 January 2012. On 5 September 2012, the petitioner moved an application (44-Ga) stating therein that the petitioner was depositing the rent under Section 30 of Act No.13 of 1972 and had deposited the rent till August 2012, therefore, request to adjust the sum and permit the petitioner to deposit the rent in the pending suit for the month of September 2012 and onwards. The respondent/landlord contested the application by moving an application (48-Ga) requesting to strike off the defence of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not deposited the rent in terms of Rule 5 Order 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to which the petitioner filed a reply. The Court allowed the application (48-Ga) of the respondent/landlord striking off the defence of the petitioner vide order dated 30 July 2014. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision which was dismissed by the Revisional Court/Additional District Judge, Varanasi on 26 February 2015.

2. Aggrieved, the petitioner is assailing the aforementioned orders in writ jurisdiction.

3. Heard Sri P.K. Kesari,learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Ganguli, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was continuously depositing the rent under Section 30 of Act No. 13 of 1972 even after filing of the written statement in the suit. The petitioner being an uneducated person and having no knowledge of the law, therefore, continued to deposit the rent under Section 30 of the Act of 1972 on the advise of the counsel. The petitioner moved an application requesting to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to deposit the rent in the Court where the suit was pending. The pleadings to the same effect has been made in para-15 and 19 of the petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments: Shakuntala Devi (Smt.) and others vs. Xth Additional District Judge, Allahabad and others1, Sunnu Lal Gupta vs. The Ist Additional District Judge, Jhansi and others2, Smt. Leela Devi and another vs. Smt. Shanti Devi Jaiswal3, Bimal Chand Jain vs. Sri Gopal Agarwal4, Surendra Nath Dubey vs. Smt. Shakuntala Devi5, Rameshwar Dayal vs. The District Judge, Allahabad and another6, to urge that a liberal approach should be taken when the delay is not intentional, the defence should not be struck off.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would submit that the scheme of Rule 5 Order 15 of the C.P.C. is mandatory and non compliance would entail striking off defence of the petitioner. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon the following cases: Haider Abbas vs. Additional District Judge (Court No.3), Allahabad and others7, and Kanhai and another vs. Prafull Kumar8.

7. The Court below has noted in the impugned order that the petitioner had put in appearance on 20 October 2011 by filing power on the date fixed for hearing and for filing the written statement. The petitioner filed written statement on 16 January 2012, the court fixed 6 February 2012 as the last date for hearing. The court below upon noticing the undisputed dates, recorded a finding that the petitioner admittedly did not comply with the provisions of Rule 5 of Order 15 nor any application was filed for compliance. The application (44-Ga) for deposit of rent and interest in terms of Rule 5 Order 15, was moved 8 months after putting in appearance in the suit, contending, therein that the petitioner has been depositing the rent in Misc. Case No. 118 of 2011 unde