K.C.Agrawal, J. - (1.) THIS is a defendant's revision directed against the order of the trial Court dated September 24, 1973 striking off the defence of the appellant. The applicant is admittedly a tenant of the premises belonging to the opposite party. The opposite party filed a suit for eviction of the applicant on May 10, 1971. The suit was subsequently transferred to the court of the Judge Small Cause on January 27, 1973. The first hearing of the suit was fixed for April 12, 1973. The applicant admittedly did not make any deposit towards the arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation on or before the aforesaid date. The opposite party, thereafter, filed an application on September 14, 1973 for striking off the defence of the applicant. This application was made under Order 15, Rule 5, Civil Procedure "Code, as amended by the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act (Act No. 37 of 1972). In this application the opposite party alleged that as the applicant had not made deposits required by the aforesaid rule 5 of Order 15, C.P.C. the written statement filed by the applicant was liable to be struck off. The application was contested by the applicant. He, however, also filed an application on September 19, 1973 for permission of the court to deposit Rs. 224 J-. According to the case of the defendant, the op posite party was not entitled to get the rent claimed by him in the suit. In support of this plea the defendant asserted that he had spent a huge sum in repairs of the house and as per the agreement he was entitled to adjust the amount spent by him on repairs. He, thus al leged hat in case the amount claimed by him was adjusted, the plain tiff opposite party was not entitled to get anything by way of arrears of rent or damages.
(2.) THE application was decided by the trial court on September 24, 1973. By the said judgment the trial court found that the applicant had not paid to the opposite party since March 1969. Therefore, the defence of the applicant was liable to be struck off. The trial court also found the total amount of rent payable by the applicant from March 1969 to April 12, 1973, which was the first date fixed for hearing came to Rs. 576.00. In the opinion of the trial court, the defence of the applicant was liable to be struck off also on the ground that the appli cant did not make monthly deposits after April 12, 1973 towards the damages. On this view of the matter the application made by the op posite party was allowed whereas the objections filed by the applicant were rejected. The applicant filed revision against the judgment of the trial court before the District Judge under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act. The revision was dismissed and the judgment of the trial court was maintained. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the two courts below, the present revision has been filed by the defendant.
(3.) IN this case the sole question involved is about the scope and am bit of Order 15, Rule 5, C.P.C. as amended by the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act (Act No. 37 of 1972). The following Rule 5 was added in Order 15 of the Civil Procedure Code: "(5) Striking off defence on non-deposit of admitted rent, etc.- In any suit by a lesser for the eviction of a lessee from any immov able property after the determination of his lease, and for the re covery from him of rent in respect of the period of occupation thereof during the continuance of the lease, or of compensation for the use or occupation thereof whether instituted before or after the commencment of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws Amend ment Act, 1972, the defendant shall, at or before the first hearing of the suit, (or in the case of a suit instituted before the com mencement of the said Act), the first hearing after such com mencement deposit the entire amount of rent, or compensation for(use and occupation admitted by him to be due, and thereafter throughout the continuance of the suit, deposit regularly the amount of monthly rent or compensation for use and occupa tion, due at the rate admitted by him, and in the event of any default in this regard, the court may unless after considering any representation made by him in that behalf it allows him further time on security being furnished for the amount, refuse to enter tain any defence or, as the case may be, strike off his defence. (2) The provisions of this rule are in addition to and not in derogation of anything contained in rule 10 of Order XXXIX." ;