- (1.) A. B. Srivastava, J. In this petition counter affidavit has been files quite some time ago, despite sufficient opportunity no rejoinder affidavit hap been filed. In accordance with Rules of Court the petition is being disposed of finally after hearing the learned appearing on behalf of both the parties.
(2.) IN an ejectment suit filed by the respondent-landlord after terminat ing the tenancy of the petitioner- tenant, an application was moved by the landlord under Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. with a prayer to strike off the defence of the petitioner on account of non-compliance of the said rules by depositing the amount of arrears of rent and damages, as well as the amount falling due month to month during the pendency of the suit. No written objection was filed against the said application by the petitioner. The appli cation was opposed on the ground that the petitioner has not admitted the respondent as landlord hence there is no liability to make deposit. Rejecting the said contention, the trial court struck off the defence and the same was confirmed in revision. The contention on behalf of the petitioner advanced by his learned counsel that on account of mere denial in written statement of the relation of landlord and the tenant, the petitioner was absolved of the liability to deposit the rent is not sustainable. Court is required to see whether denial is bona fide or a mere a camouflage. In this case it was a camouflage undisputedly the petitioner had been paying rent in the past to the respondent No. 3. He also deposited the rent in his favour under Section 30 of Act 13 of 1972 and admitted the petitioner to be landlord in his reply to notice, dated 11-5-1985, Annexure CA-1, and affidavit, dated 11-5-1985, Annexure CA-3. In this view of the matter, there is no escape from the conclusion that the courts below rightly held the petitioner to have committed breach of provisions of Order XV, Rule 5. C. P. C. rendering his defence liable to be struck off. The writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .;