Advocates:
['SIDDHARTHA SINGH', '', 'P S BISHT', 'KULDEEP S RAWAL', 'VIKAS KUMAR GUGLANI']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT

NAINITAL

Civil Revision No.60 of 2015

Nattha Singh

… Revisionist

vs.

Raj Kumar

… Respondent

AND

Civil Revision No.61 of 2015

Jagjeet Singh

… Revisionist

vs.

Raj Kumar

… Respondent

AND

Civil Revision No.62 of 2015

Pankaj Mehta

… Revisionist

vs.

Raj Kumar

… Respondent

AND

Civil Revision No.63 of 2015

Shyam Sunder

… Revisionist

vs.

Raj Kumar

… Respondent

Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate with Mr. P. S. Bisht, Advocate present for the revisionists.

Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocate present for the respondent.

-2-

U. C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

1.

Since the subject matter of the aforesaid Civil Revisions is

similar, therefore, all are being decided together by this common

judgment for the sake of brevity and convenience.

2.

All the aforesaid Civil Revisions no.60/2015, 61/2015

62/2015 & 63/2015 have been filed against the common

judgment and order dated 08.05.2015 passed by the Judge,

Small Causes Court / Additional District Judge, Khatima, District

Udham Singh Nagar in SCC case Nos.2/2012, 11/2011, 13/2011 &

12/2011 respectively.

3.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

impugned judgment and order dated 08.054.2015 whereby the

application under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. filed on behalf of the

plaintiff (respondent herein) was allowed by striking-off the

defence of the defendants (revisionists herein). Admittedly, the

rent is not being deposited by the defendants-tenants before the

Judge, Small Causes Court, but the same is being deposited

under Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings

(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter

referred to as the Act no.13 of 1972). The question for

consideration of this Court is – whether the deposition of rent

under Section 30 of Act no.13 of 1972 can be considered while

deciding an application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC or not?

4.

Learned counsel for the revisionists placed reliance upon a

decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bimal Chand Jain vs.

Sri Gopal Agarwal, 1981 ARC 463 (SC). The relevant

portion of the said judgment will be dealt with in the subsequent

paras.

-3-

5.

Learned counsel for the revisionists also relied upon a

decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Pradeep Kumar

vs. 5^th Additional District Judge, Etah & others, 1997 (1)

ARC 211, whereby it was observed as under :

“3. It has been held by the Supreme Court that even if the

amounts are not deposited as required by Order XV,

Rule 5 C.P.C., the trial Court is not bound to strike-off the

defence vide 1981 ARC 463 (SC), AIR 1987 SC 1011 and

AIR 1985 SC 965 etc. In my opinion since striking-off

the defence is a very serious step because it denies

opportunity of hearing to the defendant, it should be

done very sparingly. Hence I set aside the orders dated

29.3.1989 and 15.2.1991 but I direct that the suit No.29 of

1985 be decided by the trial Court within six months of

production of copy of this order.”

6.

Learned counsel for the revisionists also placed reliance

upon a decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Mohd.

Islam vs. 3^rd Additional District Judge, Allahabad &

others, 1999(36) ALR 76, wherein it was observed:

“3. It is true that under Order 15, Rule 5, CPC the rent

should have been deposited in the Court where the suit is

pending but the fact still remains that tenant has

deposited rent under Section 30 of the Act which the

landlord can lift. According to the petitioner this was

done under the mistake of the counsel. In view of the

fact, I do not think that the Courts below are justified in

striking of the defence.

4. The judgment of the Courts below dated 23.11.1994

and 05.08.1995 are hereby quashed. The tenants are

dir