N.D. Ojha, J. - (1.) RESPONDENTS 3 to 5 are the landlords of an accommodation of which the Petitioner is the tenant. A suit was instituted by Respondents 3 to 5 against the Petitioner for his ejectment and arrears of rent etc. on the ground that he was a defaulter in payment of rent and that his tenancy had been duly terminated by serving upon him a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The suit was contested by the Petitioner by filing a written statement. On an application made by Respondents 3 to 5, however, the defence of the Petitioner was struck off on the ground that he had failed to comply with the requirements of Order 15 Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure. Against the order of Judge, Small Causes, striking off his defence the Petitioner filed a revision before the District Judge, Varanasi, which was dismissed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Respondent No. 1. Aggrieved he has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the two orders referred to above.
(2.) IT has been urged by Counsel for the Petitioner that on the facts of the instant case the defence of the Petitioner did not deserve to be struck off. Having heard Counsel for the parties I am of opinion that no good ground has been made out for interference with the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) BEFORE dealing with the submission made by Counsel for the Petitioner it would be useful to give certain facts. As is apparent from the order of the Additional District Judge, 5th of October, 1978 was the date fixed before the Judge, Small Causes, for hearing of the suit. As is well known the date fixed before a Judge, Small Causes, is the date which is meant for filing written statements as also for hearing. On an application made by the Petitioner for time to file a written statement the hearing of the case was adjourned from 5 -10 -1978 to 5 -12 -1978 by which date the Petitioner was directed to file his written statement. On 5 -12 -1978 the Petitioner applied again for time to file his written statement. This application too was allowed and the case was fixed for 5 -1 -1979. The Petitioner, however, did not file his written statement even on that date and made another application for time to file written statement. Even this application was allowed and 5th February 1979 was the next date fixed. The Petitioner chose not to file his written statement even on that date and 19 -2 -1979 was fixed for final hearing. An application for further time to file written statement was made by the Petitioner on 19 -2 -1979 also and even this application was allowed and 12th March, 1979 was the next date fixed. The Petitioner filed his written statement on 12th March, 1979. Since the rent which had fallen due and was payable by the Petitioner had not been deposited by him as contemplated by Order 15 Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure even till 12th March, 1979, on which date the Petitioner filed his written statement an application was moved on behalf of the landlord -Respondents on 28th May, 1979 which was the next date fixed for hearing after 12th March, 1979, for striking off the defence of the Petitioner. It is thereafter that the rent payable upto June, 1979, was deposited by the Petitioner on 11th July, 1979. It further appears from the order of the IInd Additional District Judge that there was default on the part of the Petitioner in compliance with the second part of Order 15 Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure also which as substituted by the State of Uttar Pradesh requires that the tenant " shall throughout the continuation of the suit regularly deposit the monthly amount due within a week from the date of its accrual," inasmuch as the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, ninth, eleventh and twelfth deposits were not made by the Petitioner within the time prescribed by Order 15 Rule 5 referred to above.;