Satya Prakash Srivastava, J. - (1.) BEING aggrieved by an order passed by the Judge Small Causes Court striking off the defence of the defendant -petitioner, which order has been affirmed in the revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the petitioner has now approached this Court seeking redress, praying for the quashing of the aforesaid orders. The facts, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of the present case are that the plaintiff -respondent had filed a suit seeking a decree of eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation pendente -lite and future besides certain other amounts on the allegations that the petitioner was a defaulter and his tenancy had been terminated but as inspite of the notice he had neither paid the arrears of rent nor had vacated the premises in dispute it had become necessary to file the suit. This suit filed on 23 -12 -1985 was registered as S.C. Suit No. 18 of 1986 on 28 -1 -1986 after the plaintiff had made good the deficiency in the court fee. The defendant -petitioner put in appearance in that suit on 9 -10 -1986. On 8 -7 -88, however, the aforesaid suit was dismissed for default. An application for setting aside the ex parte decree filed by the plaintiff was allowed on 28 -2 -1989 subject to payment of costs. The cost was paid on 7 -3 -1989 and the suit was restored to its original number. On 15 -10 -1990 the plaintiff moved an application seeking the striking off of the defence of the defendant as he had failed to comply with the requirements envisaged under Order XV R.5 of the Civil Procedure Code. This application was orally contested by the petitioner on various grounds assuring that subsequent to the notice dated 2 -11 -1985 issued by the plaintiff, the amount of rent was tendered to him through money -order which had been refused and thereafter the amount of rent was being deposited in the proceedings under Section 30 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) registered as Misc. No. 38 of 1986 of the Court of Munsif City, Bareilly. The petitioner placed reliance upon an order dated 2 -1 -1987 passed by the Munsif City in the aforesaid proceedings whereunder without going into and considering the merits, the petitioner was allowed to deposit the rent at his own risk. The petitioner took up the stand that since he had been regularly depositing the rent in the proceedings under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, his defence could not be struck off.
(2.) IN the writ petition, the petitioner has categorically asserted that the amount of rent was deposited by him in the proceeding under Section 30(1) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on 11 -2 -1986 and he had deposited the rent for the period 1 -2 -1985 to 31 -1 -1991 in the aforesaid proceedings and since February 1991 he has been depositing the rent in the court of small causes where the suit was pending. The trial court has noticed in the order passed by it that the defendant had not filed any written objection opposing the application filed by the petitioner seeking striking off of the defence put in by the defendant. It has been observed in the order that orally it had been asserted by the tenant that he had been depositing the rent in the proceedings under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The trial court placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Mrs. S. Abel v. District Judge, Allahabad and other 1980 ARC P. 261, and held that the word 'court' as used in order XV rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code means the 'court' before which the suit is pending and not any other court. The trial court accordingly held that the deposit of the monthly rent throughout the continuation of the suit has to be regularly made in the court where the suit is pending and since in the present case the defendant had not made any such deposit the various deposits made elsewhere by him could be of no avail to him. Accordingly, the trial court ignored the deposits made by the petitioner in the proceeding under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and struck off his defence.
(3.) THE revisional court after noticing the fact that the defendant had taken no steps whatsoever at any stage of the suit prior to the striking off the defence to deposit the rent, admittedly due, before the trial court and further that he had even failed to make any application seeking permission to deposit the rent due before the trial court held that he was not entitled to any relief. The revisional court concurred with the view expressed by the trial court and dismissed the revision.;