The provisions of Order XV Rule 5 CPC regarding the deposit of rent are mandatory and must be strictly complied with, and any deposit not made in accordance with the rule cannot enure the benefit of the tenant.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Unnao dated 30.11.2021, allowing SCC Revision No. 6 of 2015 preferred by the landlord-respondents, setting aside an order of the Judge, Small Cause Court dated 30.07.2015 with a remand to the Trial Judge to decide Applications Nos. 315Ga and 319 Ga, afresh.

2. SCC Suit No. 7 of 2003 was instituted by the defendant-respondents against the plaintiff-petitioner, seeking a decree of eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. The Suit was instituted on 19/20.10.2003. The plaintiffs' evidence was over by 17.09.2004 and, thereafter the suit was posted for the defendant to lead her evidence, besides disposal of the remainder of applications, pending.

3. At this stage, the plaintiff-respondents moved an application under Order XV Rule 5 CPC, bearing Paper No. 315 Ga, seeking to strike off the defendant-petitioner's defence. It was said by the plaintiff-respondents that the defendants-petitioner had made an application bearing Paper No. 24 Ga on 29.04.2004 seeking to deposit arrears of rent and damages in the sum of Rs.1,27,039/-and that up to the month of March 2005, rent was also deposited. But, ever since the month of April 2005, until time of making the application seeking to strike off defence, the defendant-petitioner has not deposited the due rent at all, let alone regularly, in accordance with the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 CPC. It was prayed that for the defendant-petitioner's failure to deposit monthly rent in Court, her defence was liable to be struck off.

4. The defendant-petitioner objected to the aforesaid application and made another application bearing Paper No. 319Ga, whereby arrears of rent for the period March 2005 to December, 2015, at the rate of Rs.1200, per mensem, together with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum taxable annually and working out to a figure of Rs.1,68,192/-was moved along with a deposit challan for the said sum.

5. A prayer was made in the said application to condone the delay in making good the deposit of rent under Order XV Rule 5 CPC. It was asserted that in the event the plaintiff-respondents' application to strike off the tenant's defence were allowed, irreparable injury would be caused to her. It was also asserted that the plaintiff had partitioned the demised premises into two parts. It was also asserted by the defendant, through her application/representation seeking condonation of delay in depositing the outstanding rent, that the suit after the year 2005 was up for consideration of an issue about its maintainability. That issue had arisen in the context that the plaintiff had included relief regarding some vacant agricultural land that was later on deleted through an amendment. During the period 2005 to 2015, the issue about maintainability had engaged the attention of the High Court. The defendant-petitioner in the best defence of her interest, had engaged another Counsel. The defendant Smt. Gomti Devi, who made this application also pleaded that she was suffering from extreme ill health and had received treatment from doctors at Lucknow and Kanpur. For the said reason as well, she could not comply with the requirement of monthly deposit of rent under Order XV Rule 5 CPC for the period April 2005 to December 2015. The delay was occasioned on account of the aforesaid reasons. It was prayed that she wants to deposit the entire outstanding rent etc.

6. The plaintiff-respondents objected to the defendant-petitioner's application 319 Ga and said that all facts asserted seeking to represent the tenants case justifying delay in deposit of monthly rent, were incorrect. The defendant Smt. Gomti Devi, had neither changed her counsel nor was she ill. It was pointed out that Smt. Gomti Devi was regularly appearing in Original Suit No. 193 of 2006, through her Counsel. It was also said that appl