JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.8.2021 passed by the District Judge, Meerut in S.C.C. Revision No. 12 of 2021, dismissing the said revision preferred by the petitioner-tenant and upholding the order of the Judge, Small Cause Court dated 16.3.2021 in S.C.C. Suit No. 78 of 2014, clarifying the position that the tenant's defence stood stuck off in terms of an earlier order passed by the Trial Court on 15.2.2021. Also, under challenge is a judgment and order dated 17.1.2022 passed by the District Judge, Meerut, dismissing S.C.C. Revision No. 19 of 2021 and affirming an order dated 31.8.2021 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Meerut in S.C.C. Suit No. 78 of 2014. The latter orders of the Revisional Court and the Trial Court are a sequel to the two earlier orders, hereinabove mentioned, passed by the Revisional Court and the Trial Court.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the motion to admit this petition to hearing.

3. According to the plaintiff-respondents (for short, 'the landlords'), the defendant-petitioner/tenant (for short, 'the tenant') is a tenant in a part of Bungalow No. 143, B.C. Lines, Civil Lines, Meerut since 12.8.2010. The rate of rent is Rs. 6000/- per month. The tenancy is one from month to month. The provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable. The tenancy has been determined through a notice to quit dated 23.8.2014, served upon the tenant on 26.8.2014. Upon receipt of notice, the tenant paid arrears of rent and electricity charges until August, 2014.

4. A suit for eviction has been instituted, where arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.9.2014 and damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 250/- per day w.e.f. 25.9.2014 have been sought.

5. The tenant has contested the suit on various pleas raised in the written statement and amongst others has asserted the facts that for the months of September and October, 2014, he had remitted rent vide Cheque No. 184886 dated 1.10.2014 and Cheque No. 184894 dated 5.11.2014, which the landlords did not present to their Bank for collection. Again, rent for the month of November and December, 2014 was remitted by registered post, which was not accepted. Thereafter, the rent was remitted, according to the tenant, by money order dated 2.12.2014 together with electricity charge, but the landlords maliciously in connivance with the Postman, did not receive it. This part of the pleadings of the tenant this Court has referred to, because otherwise from a reading of the written statement, it is difficult to comprehend the tenant's stand.

6. From what this Court understands is that the suit for eviction has proceeded, wherein the landlords have moved two successive applications bearing Paper No. 58-C and 71-C, asking the Court to strike off the tenant's defence. In these applications, the case made out is that rent has not been paid for 41 months preceding, amounting to Rs. 2,46,000/-. These applications were rejected so far as the prayer for striking off the defence is concerned, but the Court gave opportunity to deposit the entire rent etc. within 10 days. It has figured in the orders passed by the Courts below, to which reference shall shortly be made that the tenant filed objections to these applications bearing Paper No. 60-C, 62-C and 180-C urging a plea that he had spent a sum of Rs. 1,66,310/- on repairs, painting and maintenance of the tenanted premises under an oral permission by the landlords.

7. The Trial Court while disposing of the application dated 15.2.2021 noticed the landlords' stand about the plea for a set off against arrears of rent, of money claimed by the tenant to have been spent on repairs under an oral permission of the landlords. It is recorded that the landlords have denied granting any such consent. The Court has, therefore, remarked in the order dated 15.2.2021 that the issue can be determined at the trial or the tenant may bring