K.C.AGRAWAL, J. - (1.) SUIT No. 218 of 1981 was filed by Jaswant Prasad and others against the Premier Motors Private Limited and others for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages in respect of house No. 54, Civil Lines, Bareilly.
(2.) THE plaintiffs claimed that by a registered deed dated 16.10.1959/19.10.1959, the defendants 1 and 2 took on lease the land measuring 17,000 sq. feet forming part of plot No. 54, Civil Lines, Bareilly on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. The lease was initially granted for a period of ten years. In pursuance of the renewal clause, the defendants 1 and 2 exercised the option to get the lease renewed for another period of ten years beginning from 1.10.1969 to 30th September, 1979. The rent was enhanced to Rs. 650/- per month. Extended period of lease expired on 30th September, 1979 and tenancy of the defendants came to an end by efflux of time on 30th September, 1979. The defendants were then requested to vacate the land and to hand over possession to the plaintiffs, but they did not pay any heed, hence the suit was filed for possession of the land. The plaintiffs claimed that provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 did not apply as what was let out was a land. The defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit by means of a written statement and denied that Rs. 650/- was the rent per month. According to them, lump sum payment of Rs. 650/- was being made to the plaintiffs for each month for being adjusted towards future liability and that the defendants have not committed default. According to them, the agreed rent was Rs. 250/- per month, and as such, the claim of the plaintiffs that the defendants were defaulter was not correct. The defendants further alleged that their tenancy had not come to an end and was still subsisting. The defendants since did not comply with Order 15, Rule 5 of the CPC by depositing the rent required under the same, the plaintiffs filed an application for striking off the defence/written statement on 4.4.1983. The application was contested by the defendants by means of an objection. The Civil Judge held that as Order 15, Rule 5 of the Code had not been complied with, the written statement was liable to be struck off.
(3.) AGAINST the said order, this revision was filed. Being of the opinion that the Full Bench case, Smt. Chandra Rani v. Vikram Singh, 1979(5) All LR 56 holding U.P. Act 57 of 1976 (is not inconsistent with Civil Procedure Code (1908) was required to be reconsidered, therefore, the learned Single Judge before whom the revision came up for hearing, referred the two following questions for decision by the larger Bench :- 1. Whether in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ganpat Giri (AIR 1986 SC 589) (supra), the provisions of Order 15, Rule 5 CPC, stood repealed by virtue of the provisions of Section 97(1) of the Central Act No. 104 of 1976 ? 2. Whether the Central amendments having come into force with effect from 1.2.77 repealed the provisions of Order 15, Rule 5, CPC, introduced by the U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976 ? ;