- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order of the trial Court dated 17. 9. 1998 striking off the defence of the petitioner and the order of the revisional Court dated 16. 3. 1999 dis missing the revision against the aforesaid order.
(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent No. 3 filed suit No. 141 of 1992 against the petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages. THE petitioner filed written-statement. THE plaintiff-respondent filed an application to strike off the defence of the petitioner with the allegations that the defendant had not deposited the admitted rent within the time. THE petitioner submitted a repre sentation along with an affidavit. It was stated that he was depositing the rent in the proceedings Sunder Section 30 (2) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) on the advice of the Counsel. THE delay in deposit of the amount was explained. THE trial Court found that the rent for the certain period was not deposited in time and struck off the defence of the petitioner or 17. 9. 1998. THE petitioner preferred a revision against this order. It has been dismissed by the im pugned order dated 16. 3. 1999. I have heard Sri Nimai Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. M. Lal, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent. The defence can be struck-off by the Court if the tenant fails to deposit admitted rent on the date of the hearing along with interest and further he is liable to deposit rent every month. The Court is, however, not obliged to strike off the defence if the defendant submits a reasonable explanation as to why he could not deposit the amount within time.
(3.) THE explanation given by him was that he was advised to deposit the amount under Section 30 (2) of the Act by his Counsel. THE explanation was not ac cepted by the Courts below and struck off the defence. Learned Counsel for the respon dent urged that the petitioner was fully aware that the plaintiff- respondent alone was a landlord but he illegally deposited the amount under Section 30 (2) of the Act and, therefore, he cannot be granted any benefit of such deposit. The Court is not to consider here whether the deposit made by the petitioner under Section 30 (2) of the Act was valid. The submission of the petitioner was that he deposited the amount under the mistaken advice of the Counsel. If the petitioner has committed any mistake on a wrong advice given by the counsel, he cannot be penalised and the defence be struck off. The petitioner had deposited the rent and if he had deposited the amount under Section 30 (2) of the Act, it must be on the basis of the legal advice of the Counsel.;