Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Anil Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri P.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondents. The learned Counsel for the parties jointly agreed that the present writ petition may be heard and decided finally, without inviting any counter -affidavit.
(2.) THE present writ petition arises out of proceedings under Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C. Ram Shankar Chaurasia (since deceased) instituted S.C.C. Suit No. 101 of 1987 against Vinod Bihari Mehrotra (since deceased), the predecessor in interest of the petitioners for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and damages. An application under Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C. was filed by the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant -tenant has not deposited the monthly rent within time prescribed. The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 29.8.1998 rejected the said application on the finding that the amount has been deposited with delay, but it is not a fit case for exercise of discretion to strike off the defence. The said order has been reversed in S.C.C. Revision No. 182 of 1998 by the impugned order dated 27.1.2007. On a perusal of the order of the Revisional Court it is clear that it has not recorded any specific finding with regard to default. A chart has been filed along with writ petition which shows that the petitioners have deposited the amount after adjusting water charges, with delay.
(3.) THE Revisional Court has observed only this much that defendants have defaulted in regular payment of 93 months from 1.4.1988 to 31.12.1995. The fact remains that the defendant -tenant as a matter of fact deposited the rent. In my view, if deposits have been made by the defendants, Courts should be slow in striking off the defence in such matters.;