Point of Law : The provisions under Order XV Rule 5(2) provides a locus poenitentiae to the defaulting tenant to make a representation, which must be made within ten days of the first hearing or within a week from the date of accrual of rent as the case may be, and if the representation is not made within the specified time the court has no jurisdiction to consider a time barred representation or condone the delay or extend time.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This S.S.C. Revision by the defendant is directed against an order of the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Varanasi, sitting as the Small Cause Court, dated 11.11.2019 passed in SCC Suit No. 7 of 2017, rejecting the defendant's application, seeking to condone the delay in complying with the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 CPC, with a further prayer to permit the defendant to deposit arrears of rent from the month of March, 2015 in the alternative, to adjust the rent deposited by the defendant under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, with permission to deposit the outstanding rent from the date of institution of the suit.

2. Notice pending admission was issued vide order dated 17.07.2019, and an interim stay of proceedings of the suit was granted. The landlord has put in appearance and opposed the motion to admit this Revision to hearing. Learned Counsel for the parties were heard and orders were reserved.

3. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the revisionist-tenant in support of the motion to admit the Revision to hearing and Mr. Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ayush Khanna, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party.

4. The facts of this case, and more particularly, the course of proceedings here would show that this Revision is a second attempt by the defendant in the suit, who is the tenant, to unshackle himself of his liability under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’). The defendant, Pushpa Gupta, shall hereinafter be referred to as the tenant. Subhash Chandra and Pankaj Deovanshi, the plaintiffs, shall hereinafter be referred to as, the landlords.

5. The landlords instituted S.C.C. Suit No. 7 of 2017 on 10th of February, 2017 before the District Judge, Varanasi, sitting as the Judge, Small Cause Court, against the tenant, seeking a decree of eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation till delivery of possession. The demised premises are described as two rooms together with a lavatory, a bathroom and kitchen, located on the First Floor of House no. CK-48/178, situate at Mohalla Harha, City Varanasi and bounded as detailed at the foot of the plaint. The aforesaid premises shall hereinafter be referred to as, the demised premises. It appears that the demised premises were earlier part of House No. CK-48/178, of which one Smt. Saroj Gupta was the owner. Saroj Gupta executed a registered sale deed dated 16.03.2015, conveying in favour of one Saurabh Singh and others, a part of the said house on the southern side of it. It appears that the demised premises is the part of the house bearing no. CK-48/178, that was transferred by Smt. Saroj Gupta in favour of Saurabh Singh and others. Smt. Saroj Gupta served the tenant with a notice dated 18.03.2016, informing the tenant that she had sold a part of house no. CK-48/178 to Saurabh Singh and others. The notice said that Smt. Saroj Gupta had received the current rent, inclusive of taxes up to the month of February, 2015 from the tenant, relating to the demised premises. The notice also said that after execution of the sale deed, she was no longer entitled to receive rent for the demised premises, which would be payable to Saurabh Singh and others.

6. After service of this notice, the tenant instituted an application under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (for short ‘the Act’) on 30.05.2016, that was registered as Misc. Case No. 46 of 2016, Smt. Pushpa Gupta vs. Subhash Chandra and Others. These proceedings by the tenant were brought with a case that a portion of the demised premises was part of house no. CK-48/178, the owner and landlady whereof was Smt. Saroj Gupta, and another portion of the said premises was part of house no. CK-48/178-A, the owners whereof were Subhash Chandra and Pankaj Deovanshi (the landlords).

7. It was pleaded that Smt. Saroj Gupta was not accepting rent, though she was entitled to a share in