JUDGMENT :

Prior to dealing with the respective arguments which had been extended by the learned counsel for the parties to the present civil revision, which has been preferred under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, few facts, which are apparent on record in view of the findings, which are recorded in the impugned order dated 08.12.2020, are required to be dealt with initially before dealing with the rival contentions, which has been argued by the learned counsel for the parties based on the interpretation given to the provisions contained under Order 15 Rule 5 of the CPC.

2. In fact, as a consequence of the institution of the proceedings under Section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, the issue which was agitated, was pertaining to as to what effect or bearing will the non compliance of the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 of the CPC, would have, for the purposes of striking of the defence in the instant case, which was only confined to be attracted for the purposes of determination of the rent, which the revisionist was otherwise supposed to pay in the light and spirit of the provisions contained under Order 15 Rule 5 of the CPC, because there are three apparent facts, which are not disputed by either of the parties to the present civil revision :-

(1) That the revisionist has vacated the premises and handed over the vacant possession.

(2) That there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant and

(3) That the very genesis of the creation of the tenancy by the lease deed dated 11.06.2018, is still a subject matter of the consideration in the pending civil proceedings before the Civil Judge, Senior Division. However, the third ground referred above may not hold this revision qua the argument which had been extended by the learned Counsels for the parties.

3. By the order impugned, which was rendered in SCC Suit No.39 of 2019, “Hamendra Kumar Agarwal and others Vs. V.B. Autosales”, the consequential effect of the order was that the revisionist defence, was struck of by attracting the provisions contained under Order 15 Rule 5 of the CPC.

4. To deal with the issue, a prior reference to the provisions contained under Order 15 Rule 5 of the CPC, becomes imminent to be considered, it needs no deliberation by this Court that the provisions contained under Order 15 Rule 5 of the CPC, has to be splited into two parts, in its consideration pertaining to the liability, which the tenant has to discharge on the institution of the proceedings for eviction.

5. The first part of it would be the remittance of an admitted rent which was then due to be paid on the first date of hearing, on the initiation of the proceedings. The second part would be that during the pendency of the proceedings of the SCC Suit, under Order 15 Rule 5, the tenant was supposed to ensure to continue to remit the admitted monthly rent, and in case of default of either of the conditions, the provisions contained under Order 15 Rule 5 of CPC of striking of the defence under Order 15 Rule 5 of the CPC, is to be attracted, but there is a rider attached to it under sub-rule (2) of Order 15 Rule 5 of the CPC, that before striking of the defence, under either of the two circumstances, that could have had been only when the Court considers, the representation submitted by the defendant/tenant, prior to the attracting the restrictions, which had been imposed by Order 15 Rule 5 of the CPC, for striking of the defence.

6. In the proceedings, which were held in SCC Suit No.39 of 2019, was only now limited to be confined, to be considered qua the liability of the remittance of the monthly rent, which was claimed in the proceedings for the suit because it is an admitted case of the revisionist that the possession of the disputed tenement was already handed over, and it is on this question of fastening of the liability of payment of monthly rent, which was the subject matter of the consideration. In order to invoke Order 15 Rule 5 of the CPC, to be read with S