Yatindra Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is the tenant's writ petition. Respondent No. 3, Shabbir Hussain is the landlord of the premises in dispute. Shri Pyarey Miyan, petitioner is the tenant at the rate of Rs. 110 per month. Premises in dispute is a shop. Respondent No. 3 filed a suit for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent. In this suit application No. 28 -C has been filed by the plaintiff -landlord that defence of the tenant be struck off. This application has been allowed by the Judge, Small Causes Court (Respondent No. 2) by his order dated 28.3.1991. Against this order tenant filed a revision. This revision was dismissed on 2.3.1994, by VIIIth Additional District Judge, Bareilly. The trial Court struck off the defence on the ground that monthly deposits were not made within time and also on the ground that these deposit have been made under Section 30 of the Rent Control Act before Munsif City, Bareilly.
(2.) THE Revisional Court gave a finding that it is true that sometime rent of two or three months deposited at a time. This is the technical ground and it cannot be said that rent was deposited beyond time so as to strike off the defence. But according to Revisional Court this rent was deposited under Section 30 of the Act and this cannot be treated as rent under Order XV, Rule 5. May be the deposit of rent under Section 30 cannot be treated as deposit under Order XV, Rule 5 but the fact still remains that the tenant had deposited the rent in same proceedings, which the tenant has right to lift. It cannot be said that tenant was acting malafide. In view of the same there is no justification to strike off the defence of the tenant. The orders dated 2.3.1994 and 28.3.1990 are hereby quashed.
(3.) SHRI Vipin Sinha stated that the rent in future will be deposited in the Court of Judge, Small Cause Court. The same may be done in future. Needless to add that case may be decided at an early date. With these observation the aforementioned writ petition is allowed.;