ORDER :

Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.

"Whether principle of natural justice is necessary to be followed under Order XV Rule 5, C.P.C. for striking off the defence" is the main question involved in the present revision."

1. Heard Sri P.K. Jain, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Abu Bakht, learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/revisionist and Sri Atul Dayal, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Sumit Daga, learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlord/respondent.

FACTS:

2. It is not in dispute that the defendant/revisionist is the tenant in a portion of House No. 113B/1, Vakil Road, Nai Mandi, Muzaffarnagar, of which the plaintiff-respondent is the owner and landlord. According to the defendant-tenant/revisionist, the rent was Rs. 750/- per month while according to the plaintiff-landlord/respondent, the rent was Rs. 2,500/- per month. The plaintiff-landlord/respondent filed S.C.C. Suit No. 20 of 2011 (Manohar Lal Singhal vs. Shashi Bhushan) in which the defendant-tenant/revisionist filed written statement on 30.09.2011. He also filed an Application 22ga under Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C. for adjustment of rent deposited in Misc. Case No. 133 of 2009, upto the period of June, 2011 @ Rs. 750/- per month under Section 30 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 and submitted tender form for depositing the balance amount of rent and interest. The application of the defendant-tenant/revisionist was allowed by the court and the amount was deposited on 10.10.2011. Thereafter, parties led their evidences. It appears that at the time of final argument, the plaintiff-landlord/respondent made submission that the amount deposited in Misc. Case No. 133 of 2009 under Section 30 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972, could not be adjusted since that case was dismissed for non-prosecution on 19.03.2010 which was, however, restored on 29.01.2012. The court below proceeded a step ahead and passed the impugned judgment dated 11.11.2014, whereby the suit was decreed. In the impugned judgment, the court below suo motu framed an issue of non-compliance of the provisions of Order XV Rule 5, C.P.C. by the defendant-tenant/revisionist and decided it against the defendant-tenant/revisionist without affording him any opportunity of hearing. It is also relevant to note that no application was ever filed by the plaintiff-landlord/respondent for striking off the defence of the defendant-tenant/revisionist. The defence was struck off in the manner as aforesaid and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the defendant-tenant/revisionist, the suit was decreed by the impugned judgment without consideration to the evidences led by the defendant-tenant/revisionist.

3. Aggrieved with the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.11.2014 in S.C.C. Suit No. 20 of 2011 passed by Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh-II, Judge Small Cause/Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Muzaffarnagar, the defendant-tenant/revisionist has filed the present revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.

SUBMISSIONS:-

4. Learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/revisionist submits that no opportunity of hearing was afforded by the court below either at the time of framing the issue No. 12 or while deciding it. The aforesaid case was finally heard and the impugned judgment was delivered on 11.11.2014. The impugned judgment is violative of principles of natural justice. Apart from this, the defendant-tenant/revisionist has fully complied with the provisions of Order XV Rule 5, C.P.C. Therefore, there was no occasion for the court below to strike off the defence of the defendant-tenant/revisionist.

5. Sri Atul Dayal, learned senior advocate for the plaintiff-landlord/respondent submits that there was neither any need to move an application for striking off the defence of the defendant-tenant/revisionist nor any opportunity was required to be afforded. The court below found that the provisions of Order XV Rule 5, C.P.C. have not been complied with by the defendant-tenant/revisionist and, therefore, it rightl