JUDGMENT :

Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.

These three petitions arise out of proceedings initiated by a common landlord, Sri Kapoor Chandra Agarwal, Dharamshala Trust, Kasganj, Kashiramnagar, for ejectment and arrears of rent, by filing three suits SCC Suit No. 04 of 2001, SCC Suit No. 08 of 2000 and SCC Suit No. 05 of 2001 respectively.

2. Counsel for the parties have requested that the case (Matters under Article 227 No. 5641 of 2015) may be treated to be leading petition, and they may be permitted to argue from the pleadings in the said petition.

3. The aforementioned suits were contested by the tenants by filing their written statements. It is undisputed that on the first date of hearing, the amount in question, as required under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was deposited; however, thereafter during the continuation of the suit proceedings, the monthly amount due was not deposited, and subsequently an application was moved under Order XV Rule 5 CPC for condoning the delay and for depositing the arrears of rent which as per the tenant-petitioners could not be deposited earlier due to wrong legal advice. The applications which were moved, were objected to by plaintiff-landlord by filing objections. The aforementioned applications which had been filed by the defendant-tenant on 29.11.2005 seeking condonation of delay and permission to deposit the arrears of rent, were allowed with costs of Rs.1500/-. The aforementioned orders were challenged by the plaintiff-landlord by filing SCC revisions, which were dismissed vide order dated 01.09.2006 and against the aforesaid order the writ petitions, being writ petition nos. 66771/2006, 66769/2006 and 66770/2006 were filed.

4. The aforementioned writ petitions were heard together and decided by a common judgment dated 24.10.2008.

5. The provisions under Order XV Rule 5 and the legal position with regard to the same were considered in extenso, and adverting to the factual position, it was noticed that in the proceedings which had been initiated by the plaintiff-landlord by filing suits seeking relief for ejectment and arrears of rent in respect of tenanted accommodation, written statements had been filed on 05.05.2001, and there was no dispute that on the first date of hearing the tenants deposited the entire arrears of rent admitted to be due as required under the first part of Order XV Rule 5 CPC. Thereafter, no deposit towards the monthly amount due w.e.f. 11.04.2001 was made, and on 07.08.2004 applications were moved for passing of the tender stating therein that on wrong advice the rent in question could not be deposited and, therefore, permission was sought to deposit the rent. The said applications were objected to on 17.08.2004 by the plaintiff-landlord and on the same date applications were moved for striking off the defence.

6. While deciding the writ petitions, the principal issue which was considered, was as to whether the courts below had erred in law in not striking off the defence as admittedly after appearance has been put in on the first date of hearing the first part of the Order XV Rule 5 CPC had been complied with and in regard to the second part of the Order XV Rule 5 CPC no compliance had been made at all as during continuation of the suits the monthly rent accrued had not at all been deposited. The observations made by the court while considering the aforementioned issue are as follows:

"It is true that liberal view is to be taken in all these matters but in the garb of liberal view it is not provided for to accept all sort of story created and carved out for the purposes of the case. The theory which has been set up has to be logically tested as to whether it's rightful theory or it is theory only for the purposes of the cause. In the present case both the courts below have proceeded to mention that rent was not such which could not have been deposited and as such malafides are not reflected. Question is not of the quantum of the rental amount. Question