Strict compliance with the requirements of Order XV Rule 5 CPC and the need for the tenant to deposit the monthly rent in the Court where the suit is filed.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prakhar Tandon, Advocate appearing on behalf of plaintiff-respondents.

2. The petitioner is a tenant and the defendant in S.C.C. Suit No. 350 of 2018, pending before the Judge, Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar.

3. On an application made by the respondent-landlord under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the CPC’) the learned Judge, Small Cause Court has ordered the petitioner's defence to be struck off on the ground of failure to regularly deposit rent, month by month, with the Trial Court. The order was challenged in a revision preferred to the District Judge of Kanpur Nagar, being Civil Revision No. 91 of 2021. The said revision was heard and dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 16, Kanpur Nagar.

4. Accordingly, the petitioner has instituted this petition under Article 227, asking this Court to set aside the two orders dated 08.02.2021 and 09.09.2021 passed by the Courts below and restore his defence.

5. The facts of this case, relevant for the purpose of this petition, show that there is no issue about compliance with the first part of Rule 5 of Order XV CPC, which requires deposit to be made on the first date of hearing. What had led to the petitioner's defence being struck off, is non-compliance with the part that requires monthly rent to be deposited regularly with the Court, where the suit is pending, within 7 days of the date of its accrual. Here, the petitioner claims to be depositing rent under Section 30(1) of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (for short ‘the Act’) in the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Kanpur Nagar vide Misc. Case No. 425/70/2018. Summons of the suit were received by the petitioner's wife, Kiran on 13.12.2019. On 08.03.2019, Mr. Sushil Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, instructed by the petitioner, Gangu, put in appearance on his behalf in the suit and obtained necessary copies of the plaint etc. On the 8th April, 2019, a written statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner put in appearance on 8th April, 2019 and filed his written statement on 8th April, 2019. Surprisingly, however, the petitioner continued to deposit monthly rent in the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) under Section 30 (1) of the Act for the months of April, 2019 to November, 2020, and that too, in lump sum for two months at a time. The first deposit of monthly rent in the Court, where the suit is pending, was made on 1st February, 2021. It was for the months of December, 2020 and January, 2021.

6. It is submitted by Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner contested the suit through his Counsel and was not aware of the requirements of the law regarding deposit under Order XV Rule 5 CPC. He acted as per advice of the learned Counsel and deposited rent under Section 30 of the Act, which he did regularly. It is submitted that on account of lack of awareness of the law, he cannot be deprived of his valuable right, as valuable as his defence in an eviction suit. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel upon the decision of this Court in Kedar Nath vs. Waqf Sheikh Abdullah Charitable Madursa and Others, 2015 SCC Online All. 7172:

10. In Pramod Mehrotra and Others vs. Ram Shankar Chaurasia and Others, 2007 (3) ARC 77, where the amount was deposited with some delay, this Court relying upon Bimal Chand Jain (supra), held that discretion should be exercised not to strike off the defence where the entire amount has been paid with some delay.

11. Again in Sudhir Kumar Gupta vs. Dr. S.K. Raj and Another, 1998 (1) ARC 545, the Court observed that the purpose of enacting the provision Rule 5 Order XV was not to give a lever to the landlord to get a tenant punished for insignificant lapses. The purpose was merely to ensure that the dues of the landlord are properly secured