- (1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides.
(2.) A suit was filed against the defendant-revisionist for eviction from a house in Mirzapur. The suit was also for arrears of rent. It appears that the arrears were not deposited in terms of Order XV, Rule 5 CPC (as introduced in the Uttar Pradesh) and the month-to-month rent was also not deposited, as required under the law. The Revisionist had filed her written statement but due to failure of compliance of the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5 her defence was struck off by order dated 12-3-1996. This order is now under challenge. Admittedly, monthly rent is Rs. 3,200. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist that there was no arrear prior to the suit, but he is not in a position to deny that till date even the monthly rent after filing of the suit have not been paid, barring a sum of Rs. 7,000 and some odd (or Rs. 14,000 as submitted by the revisionist ). Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court as reported in 1981 AWC 521. A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in this case overruled an earlier dictum of the Allahabad High Court, as reported in 1980 AWC 712, and observed that the word "may" in sub-rule (1) of Order XV, Rule 5 merely vests power in the court to strike off the defence, but it does not oblige it to do so in every case of default. It was further observed that a serious responsibility rests on the court in the matter and the power is not to be exercised mechanically. I may not say that the learned court, below had acted mechanically or without responsibility, but the judgment referred atleast suggests that a soft approach may be made to such problems of non-deposits of rents. When written statement has already been filed by the revisionist in the court below and she shows her eagerness to clear all arrears and to deposit the monthly rent regularly as required under the law, it is desirable that the court may be soft towards her atleast for one more occasion and she may not be denied her defence.
(3.) IT is submitted on behalf of the other party that the arrears amounted upto more than 2,50,000. The revisionist agrees to clear up the outstanding arrears within two months from today in two instalments. The revisionist also agrees to continue to deposit monthly rent from this very month as per law. Upon this position of the facts and law and upon the above undertakings, the present revision stands allowed. The order dated 12-3-19% striking off the defence ot the revisionist is set aside subject to the condition that the revisionist shall deposit all the outstanding arrears upto the month of June, 1996, within two months, the first instalment of not less than half of the arrears being deposited within one month from today. The monthly rent for each month must be deposited as per law by the 7th of the next following month. IT is made clear that in case of any default either in payment of instalments for the arrears or in depositing the monthly rent, it will be open for the trial court to proceed under Order XV, Rule 5 irrespective of the present order. The trial may proceed. Revision allowed. .;