Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of Judge, Small Causes Court, respondent No. 2, dated 20.1.1998, whereby he struck off the defence of the petitioner and the order of respondent No. 1 dated 17.2.1999, dismissing the revision against the said order.
(2.) The petitioner is a tenant of the disputed premises. Smt. Vidya Devi, the erstwhile owner, gave a notice dated 31.8.1990 to the petitioner demanding arrears of rent Rs. 575 for the period 19.9.1988 to 18.8.1990 at the rate of Rs. 25 per month and Rs. 106 towards house tax and water tax. The petitioner sent money order for Rs. 600 which was accepted by her. She filed Suit No. 150 of 1999 for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages with the allegations that the petitioner had not paid the entire amount which included the house tax and water tax after service of the notice. He was defaulter and was liable for eviction. The summons was issued to the petitioner wherein 5.8.1991 was the date fixed for filing written statement. The suit was dismissed in default of plaintiff on 19.9.1991. He filed an application for restoration of the suit. The Court restored the suit on 22.1.1993. The plaintiff sold the property to respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 on 17.8.1993. They filed application for their impleadment as plaintiffs. The Court allowed their impleadment application on 9.12.1993. On 17.3.1994 the petitioner filed written statement. It was alleged that he had remitted the rent by money order and had not committed any default in payment of arrears of rent.
(3.) The plaintiffs filed an application to strike off the defence on the ground that the petitioner had not deposited the entire arrears of rent as claimed by the plaintiff on the date fixed for filing written statement, i.e., on 5.8.1991. It was further alleged that the petitioner did not continue to deposit monthly rent regularly and on that ground also his defence was liable to be struck off. The petitioner filed objection. It was stated that the entire arrears of rent had been remitted to the erstwhile landlady and no rent was due against him. He had further paid rent for the period till 17th March, 1994 to the previous landlady. As regards deposit of monthly rent, it was stated that it was being deposited but there was delay in deposit of the amount as he was running in financial difficulty on account of treatment of her daughter-in-law and secondly the lawyers never advised him to deposit every month within time as provided under Order XV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court struck off the defence holding that the petitioner failed to establish that he had paid the rent to the previous landlady for the period prior till 17th March, 1994 and the explanation submitted by him for deposit of delayed monthly rent was not acceptable. The revision filed by the petitioner against this order was dismissed by respondent No. 1 on 17.2.1999.;