- (1.) THIS is a defendant's revision filed against a judgement of the District Judge, Bulandshahr, dated 22-3- 1977, allowing a revision preferred by the plaintiffs under S.25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.
(2.) THE plaintiffs filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant on the ground that he did not pay the arrears of rent with effect from 1-7-1968 despite the service of notice of demand on 11-4-1974, and, therefore, he was liable to ejectment. THE suit was contested by the defendant. He claimed that before the filing of the present suit, the plaintiffs had filed Suit No. 338 of 1971. In the said suit, the defendant had deposited the rent for the period from 1-7-1968 to 31-8-1973, and that after having received the notice of demand, a reply was sent to the plaintiffs informing him of the said deposit. THE remaining amount of rent, which had been claimed through the notice of demand, was remitted by Money Order, but as the plaintiffs refused to accept the same, the defendant could not be treated to be defaulter. On the controversies, mentioned above, the Judge Small Causes framed several issues. One of the issues was :- "Whether the rent for the period 1-7-1968 to 31-8-1973 was lawfully deposited by the defendant under O.15, R.5, C.P.C. in the Court of the J.S.C.C., Bulandshahr, in Suit No. 338/71 and the defendant cannot be deemed to be in arrears of rent for the said period ?" The Judge Small Causes held that the deposit of the rent of the aforesaid period made in Suit No. 338 of 1971 was a lawful deposit, and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to treat the defendant a defaulter of the rent for the aforesaid period. On this finding, the suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs took the matter in revision. In revision, the learned District Judge differed with the Judge Small Causes, and holding that since the amount of rent of the aforesaid period had not been tendered to the plaintiffs after the service of notice of demand, the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for ejectment. The learned District Judge found that even if the deposit had been made in Suit No. 338 of 1971, that could not enure to the benefit of the defendant inasmuch as after receiving the notice it was incumbent upon the defendant to have tendered the rent for the aforesaid period again despite the deposit which might have been made earlier under O.15, R.5, C.P.C. On these findings, the learned District Judge reversed the finding of the Judge Small Causes and decreed the suit. Aggrieved, the defendant filed the present revision.
(3.) THE sole question that arises for decision in this case is about the effect of the deposit made in Suit No. 338 of 1971. THEre is no dispute between the parties that rent for the period from 1-7-1968 to 31-8- 1973 had been deposited by the defendant in the aforesaid suit. That was also a suit for ejectment brought by the plaintiffs and the deposit had been made by the defendant without any reservation. THE said suit had failed, and, thereafter, the present suit had been filed after serving a fresh notice of demand and ejectment. Order 15, R.5, C.P.C., as amended by U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972, made a provision of striking off the defence on non-deposit of admitted rent under the aforesaid provision. Under O.15, R.5, a defendant was made liable to deposit the arrears of rent as well as future monthly damages month by month. In the instant case, while the suit was pending, O.15, R.5 had come into force. As a result of the enactment of O.15, R.5, C.P.C., the defendant made the deposit. The deposit had been made unreservedly in favour of the plaintiffs with the admission made by the defendant that the rent of the aforesaid period had been due to the plaintiffs from the defendant. A deposit made under O.15, R.5, C.P.C. is for the benefit and to the advantage of the plaintiff. This provision had been made by the legislature to discourage the reckless and frivolous litigations and to see that the rightful claim of a plaintiff is not unnecessarily denied to him for long. A deposit made under the said provision is for the benefit and to the advantage of the plaintiff.;