YASHWANT VARMA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddharth Srivastava who appeared for the contesting respondents.
(2.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court to set aside the orders dated 28 November 2013 and 5 May 2014. By the first order, the Judge Small Causes Court, Bareilly has proceeded to strike off the defence of the tenant by invoking the jurisdiction under Order 15, Rule 5 CPC. This order has been affirmed by the judgement of the revisional court dated 5 May 2014.
(3.) The facts on which there is not much dispute appear to be thus:- A suit for ejectment was instituted in December 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the first date of hearing was fixed for 25 January 2011. As the orders passed by the courts below would evidence, the petitioner who was duly represented by counsel appeared on the said date and also obtained copies of the plaint and other documents. He however did not effect compliance of the provisions of Order 15, Rule 5, nor did he thereafter deposit the monthly rent on the 7th of each month as mandatorily required. The courts below have further noted that the petitioner purportedly sought to effect deposit under Section 30 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 thereafter in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Havali, Bareilly. This purported deposit under Section 30 was also admittedly made only on 25 May 2011.;