Sudhir Chandra Verma, J. - (1.) IN these two petitions, the petitioner is tenant of two different portions of premises No. 124 -E -609, Govind Nagar Kanpur. The landlord, respondent No. 3, filed suits Nos. 660 of 1985 and 659 of 1985 for arrears of rent and ejectment against the petitioner Manohar Lal. It was alleged that in spite of service of notice on 19 -7 -1985, the petitioner committed default and rent for more than 4 months remained due. Hence the present suit. In the written statement, the petitioner tenant stated that there was an excess amount with the landlord and the petitioner was liable to adjustment of Rs. 5400/ - and Rs. 3650/ - which were spent with the consent of the landlord. During the pendency of the aforesaid suits, the landlord respondent No. 3 filed an application to strike off the defence under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. In spite of the aforesaid application, the petitioner neither filed any abjection nor deposited any rent.
(2.) THE learned Judge small causes court by order dated 18 -10 -1987 struck off the defence of the defendant and held that the tenant had not made any deposits in compliance with the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. The tenant -petitioner filed revisions against the aforesaid orders being Revision No. 76 of 1989 and 77 of 1989. The learned IV Additional District Judge dismissed both the revisions by two separate and identical orders both dated 25 -1 -1990. The learned Judge has held that compliance of the mandatory provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. were required to be done and the defendant can not be absolved merely because he has incurred certain expenses on repairs. It was further held that the defendant can not refuse the payment of rent and damages merely on the strength of pleading of the written statement. The pleading of the tenant and the defence can only be considered after the legal hurdle created by Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. has been complied with. In the present petitions, both the orders dated 15 -10 -1987 and 25 -1 -1990 have been impugned The learned counsel for the petitioner contended before me that before the Court could strike off the defence, the plea taken in the written statement about excess deposits lying with the landlord plaintiff should have been considered. For this proposition. The learned counsel relied on a case reported in, 1990 R.D. 445. At the outset it is made clear that in the aforesaid case the defendant raised objection with regard to the adjustment claimed by him not in the pleadings in the written statement but by a separate application to contest proceedings under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. In the present Case, apart from the pleadings in the written statement, the defendant has not filed any objection to the application filed by the plaintiff for striking off the defence under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. Under the circumstances, it was not required that the Court should first decide the adjustment claimed by the defendant. In the present case the defendant relied on the pleadings of the written statement which can not be considered unless the requirements of Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. have been complied with. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners on the face of it can not be accepted as in case the pleadings in the written statement are considered, then the purpose of striking off the defence can not be achieved. In my opinion, the conclusion and the reasoning stated in the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The petitions are devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The interim orders in both the cases are discharged.;