Strict compliance with statutory provisions is necessary to claim the benefit conferred by the law.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 13.5.2015 passed in SCC Revision No.2 of 2014, whereby the revision has been allowed and the order passed by the trial court dated 8.8.2014 striking off the defence of the defendant-opposite party no.2 in exercise of power under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC has been set aside.

3. The facts in brief are that the plaintiff-petitioner instituted SCC Suit No.2 of 2010 against the defendant-opposite party no.2 for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction from a shop bearing No.462 Chapatti Gali, Bisatkhana, Mainpuri. The suit was instituted on 17.8.2010. It was preceded by a notice dated 8.5.2010 determining the tenancy of the defendant opposite party. The plaintiff claimed arrears of rent since April, 2006.

4. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement dated 3.12.2010 claiming that there was no default in payment of rent, as the rent when tendered was refused, consequently, it was deposited in Misc. Case No.36 of 2001.

5. On 13.1.2012, the plaintiff filed an application alleging that the defendant has not made compliance of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC, inasmuch as he has failed to deposit the entire admitted rent in arrears on the first date of hearing of the suit and also the monthly rent. The defendant-respondent filed objection to the said application reiterating that the entire rent was in deposit in Misc. Case No.36 of 2001 under Section 30 (1) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It was alleged that in fact advance rent till June 2012 was in deposit in the said case.

6. The trial court by order dated 8.8.2014 allowed the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner and struck off the defence of the defendant-opposite party. The trial court declined to extend benefit of the deposits made under Section 30 of the Act to the defendant-opposite party on the ground that the said proceedings were initiated by Ram Chandra Sharma, late father of the defendant-opposite party. He died during pendency of the proceedings but even thereafter deposits were made in the said proceedings, therefore, the deposit was invalid. The trial court also held that the deposits made under Section 30 after the first date of hearing would not be valid deposits for purposes of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC, inasmuch as the deposit should have been made in the suit itself. In reaching the said conclusion, the trial court placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Atma Ram Vs. Shakuntala Rani, 2005 (7) SCC 211.

7. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court striking off the defence of the defendant-opposite party, he filed a revision. The same has been allowed by the revisional court by impugned order dated 13.5.2015. The revisional court has held that since it is not in dispute that the entire rent is in deposit in proceedings under Section 30 (1) of the Act, consequently, on technical grounds, the benefit of such deposit cannot be denied to the defendant-opposite party. The revisional court has observed that as per judgment of Supreme Court in Bimal Chand Jain Vs. Sri Gopal Agarwal, AIR 1981 SC 1657 an order striking off defence is penal in nature, therefore, the court should exercise its discretion in passing an order striking off the defence. It has been further observed that it could not be expected from an ordinary litigant to know technicalities of law. Consequently, the deposit made under Section 30 (1) of the Act would be taken into consideration while reckoning compliance of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC. Accordingly, the order of the trial court dated 8.8.2014 has been set aside.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court rightly did not extend the benefit of deposits made under Section 30 of the Act, as the person at whose instance the proceedings were registered namely Ram Chandra Sharma, father of the defendant-opposite party, had died and in the absence of the defendant-tenant being