JUDGMENT :

UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. This civil revision has been preferred by the tenant defendant against the order dated 29.05.2012 passed by ADJ, Court No. 1, Banda by which the plaintiff’s suit was decreed on merit after striking off the written statement of the defendant.

2. In brief facts of the case are that revisionist Smt. Shakuntala Soni plaintiff filed an SCC suit in the Court of Judge, SCC Court, Banda on 04.11.2009 for eviction of the defendant tenant from the shop in suit and for realization of rent from 04.11.2006 to 17.12.2006 at the rate of Rs. 650/- per month amounting Rs. 958/- and for damages for use and occupation of the shop in suit since 18.12.2006 to 03.11.2009 at the rate of Rs. 22.990/- and also for the payment of water tax and house tax at the rate of Rs. 84/- per month each since 04.11.2006 to 03.11.2009 alongwith Rs. 500/- as expenses for notice.

3. In brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the owner and land-lord of a shop at first floor in Shri Ram Market, Chowk Bazar City Banda in which defendant was the tenant since December, 2004 at the monthly rate of rent of Rs.550/- as per condition since 2005 the rate of rent became Rs.650/- per month which had to be increased Rs.100/- per month after every 5 years.

4. There was dues arrears of rent on the defendant from July, 2004 to December, 2004 for six months at the monthly rate of Rs. 500/- amounting to Rs.3,00/- and since January, 2005 to October, 2006 at the rate of Rs. 650/- per month amounting to Rs. 14,300/- and also water tax since 2004 to 2006 at the rate of Rs. 1012/- per year amounting to Rs. 3036/- and house tax from the year 2004 to 2006 at the rate of Rs. 675/- per year. The tenancy was month to month and the provisions of UP Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable in spite of the repeated request and demand, the defendant did not pay the rent. Hence, a registered notice through advocate Ashutosh Nigam was sent on 07.11.2006 under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act to the defendant and a demand was made to repay the rent and house tax and water tax by the said notice. The tenancy was also terminated after 30 days. The registered notice was served upon the defendant on 16.11.2006. In spite of service of notice neither the defendant paid the rent, water tax and house tax nor vacated and delivered the possession to the plaintiff. Since 17.12.2006 the defendant lost the character to be tenant. The plaintiffs are entitled to receive the aforementioned rent, damages and tax amount and a decree of eviction.

5. The defendant tenant has filed written statement denying the allegations of the plaint alongwith the affidavit. A copy of the order dated 12.08.2010 is on record which shows that application 21(c) moved by the plaintiff was allowed and the defence of the defendant was struck off on account of non-deposition of admitted rent in the court. The deposit made under Section 30 of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 was not accepted by the court because defendant appeared in the court and filed written statement on 03.04.2010 but she had not deposited the admitted rent, therefore, Order XV Rule 5 CPC played the role which is as under:

“5. Striking off defence for failure to deposit admitted rent:

(1) In any suit by a lessor for the eviction of a lessee after the determination of his lease and for the recovery from him of rent or compensation for use and occupation, the defendant shall, at or before the first hearing of the suit, deposit the entire amount admitted by him to be due together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent. per annum and whether or not he admits any amount to be due, he shall throughout the continuation of the suit regularly deposit the monthly amount due within a week from the date of its accrual, and in the event of any default in making the deposit of the entire amount admitted by him to be due or monthly mount due as aforesaid, the Court may, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) strike of his defence.

Expl