The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C. and the court's discretion to strike off the defence, emphasizing the need for good reasons and a lenient view.

Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

Heard Sri R.S. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.N. Rai, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner is invoking the supervising jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 25.5.2011 passed by the J.S.C. Court and the order dated 2.5.2013 passed by the revisional court. The applicant is the tenant of a shop and a godown situated in Sri Bihari Ji market at Mohalla Matwarganj, City and District Azamgarh on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- and Rs. 150/-; respectively. He was in default of rent and hence respondent no. 3 i.e. the landlord had instituted a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment. The J.S.C.C. Suit No. 12 of 2001 was instituted on 17.9.2001 on the ground that the petitioner was in default for more than four months.

3. It appears that prior to the institution of this suit, an Original Suit No. 617 of 2000 for injunction was filed by the petitioner, in which certain deposits were made.

4. In the present suit, the written statement was filed on 24.2.2005. Further an application paper no. 22 Ga2 was moved by the petitioner on 7.4.2005 with the prayer that the rent deposited by him in the Injunction Suit No. 617 of 2000 may be adjusted and he may further be permitted to deposit the current and future monthly rent, cost of the suit and the counsel's fee in the present suit. The said application was allowed on 14.3.2008 and the petitioner was permitted to make the monthly deposits after adjustment of the rent deposited by him in the injunction suit.

5. Challenging this order, respondent no. 3 filed a Revision No. 122 of 2008 which was allowed on 31.8.2010 and the order of the trial court dated 14.3.2008 permitting the petitioners to make the deposits was set aside. A writ petition challenging the order in revision was also dismissed on 14.9.2011.

6. The respondent no. 3, thereafter filed an application paper no. 62 Ga2 with the prayer to strike off the defence of the petitioner under Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C. Simultaneously an application 63 Ga2 was filed by the petitioner with the prayer to permit him to deposit the rent, the cost of the suit and the counsel's fee by condoning the delay in making these deposits.

7. The grounds taken by the petitioner in the said application were that he had acted bonafide in depositing the rent in Original Suit No. 617 of 2000 and moved an application in the instant suit to allow him to make future deposits which was allowed on 14.3.2008 and since then the petitioner was continuously depositing rent till November, 2011. He was not a defaulter and has always been ready and willing to deposit the entire rent, cost of the suit and the counsel's fee which the court would direct. He did not receive proper advised and being ignorant of the intricacies of law, he could not make the deposits earlier in the present suit. The trial court has rejected this application vide order dated 25.5.2011 and the revision challenging the same was also dismissed on 2.5.2013, hence this petition.

8. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the default, if any, made by the petitioner was not a willful default. It is not a case where the tenant had not deposited the rent rather it is a case where rent had been deposited but in another proceeding. After filing of the suit in the year 2001, the petitioner was under obligation to deposit the rent before the J.S.C. Court but he did get the correct advice and hence he continued to make deposits in the injunction suit. Soon after filing of the written statement on 24.2.2005, an application was moved by the petitioner on 7.4.2005 with the prayer to allow him to make the current and future deposits. It was also prayed that the rent deposited in the injunction suit be adjusted in the present proceedings. This application was allowed on 14.3.2008 and the petitioner had continued to deposit the regular rent till November