Point of Law : It is undisputed that rent has not been deposited before court concerned there is no provision in law to grant any relief, but the only option is to strike off the defence as provided in Order XV Rule 5 of CPC.

JUDGMENT :

[Neeraj Tiwari, J.]

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party.

3. Present Revision has been filed challenging the order dated 20.01.2023 as well as Decree dated 25.01.2023, passed by the Additional District & Session Judge, Ghaziabad in Suit No. 42 of 2016.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-defendant submitted that Suit No. 42 of 2016 was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party. He next submitted that plaintiff-opposite party has filed application dated 09.02.2022 under Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C. to strike off the defence of the revisionist-defendant, which is dully replied by revisionist-defendant by reply dated 18.04.2022. He next submitted that, while passing the impugned order dated 20.01.2023 reply of revisionist-defendant has not been properly considered. In the reply dated 18.04.2022, revisionist-defendant has stated that filing of Suit No. 42 of 2016 was itself defective, as it has been filed before 30 days from the date of notice sent by the counsel for the plaintiff. He also submitted that as the rent agreement was extended for 11 months w.e.f. 01.02.2016 and he had paid the entire dues, therefore, nothing was due on the petitioner-defendant to pay, therefore, impugned order is bad and is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist-defendant submitted that Order XV Rule 5 is having two parts, first part says that on or before the first hearing of suit, revisionist-defendant was required to deposit the entire admitted amount and, thereafter, rent on month to month basis. In the present case, the application dated 09.02.2022 has been allowed on the ground that revisionist-defendant has not paid a single penny on month to month basis as rent after first hearing of the suit initiated in 2016, which has also not been denied in the reply dated 18.04.2022 filed by revisionist-defendant, rather this has been accepted.

6. He next submitted that application of revisionist-defendant was allowed only on the ground that he has not deposited any rent after initiation of suit and after first date of hearing. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Radhe Shyam Chaurasiya and Another Vs. Smt. Babita: 2022 ADJ 272 and judgment of Apex Court Asha Rani Gupta Vs. Sri Vineet Kumar: (2022) 0 Supreme(SC) 594.

7. Being confronted by the court, even before Bar, Sri Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist-defendant fairly accepted that no rent has been deposited and monthly rent has been deposited after initiation of suit proceeding and after first date of hearing of the case.

8. I have considered submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as judgments so relied upon. The fact of the case, so far it relates to non deposit of monthly rent is undisputed.

9. From the perusal of Order XV Rule 5, it is apparently clear that revisionist-defendant had no option, but to deposit rent on month to month basis whether admitted or not admitted by him.

10. This issue was before this Court in the matter of Radhe Shyam Chaurasiya(Supra) and this Court after considering different judgments has held that it is mandatory to deposit rent on month to month basis before the court, where the suit has been instituted. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:

"5. Striking of defence for failure to deposit admitted rent, etc. 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 centum per annum and whether or not he admits any amount to be due, he shall through