PYARE LAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, LUCKNOW AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shiv Raj Mohan Nigam, in-person. The petitioner is tenant of the portion of the premises No. 58/35, Pipal Wali Gali, Hussainganj, Lucknow. Subsequently, one of the trustees, namely, Shyam Manohar Lal Nigam, in whose favour the rent was being paid, was mutated in the municipal records and as such, the petitioner continued to pay the rent to Shyam Manohar Lal. After his death, the rent was paid to his son, namely, Hari Mohan Nigam and after his death, Kuldeep Nigam was the owner, who realized the rent of the premises under tenancy from the petitioner. Thereafter, the rent was deposited in the Court.

(2.) In order to adjudicate the matter, it is imperative to look into the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which are as under:

(3.) On perusal of the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5 of the code, it is evident that after determination of the tenancy on the first date of hearing of the Suit, he should have moved an application for depositing the entire admitted outstanding amount as rent including 9% interest as well as other charges. Further, during pendency of the proceedings, he shall continuously deposit the entire amount admitted by him to be due failing which it is open for the Court where the proceedings are pending to struck down the defence.