JUGMANDAR DASS Vs. RAM PHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order dismissing an application moved by the plaintiff-landlord for striking off the defence of the lessees.

(2.) It appears that a suit was filed, inter alia, on the ground of illegal Sub-leting by the lessee-defendants. The alleged Sub-lessees were also impleaded as parties. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff-applicant, deposits of money were made by the subtenants in the court in this suit. The deposits were admittedly made to the credit of the plaintiff-applicant. They were made in order to carry out the obligation imposed upon the defendants by Order XV. Rule 5 C. P. C. to keep on depositing the rent as and when it falls due. It is not disputed that the amount due was duly deposited. The submission on behalf of the plaintiff-applicant is that the amount was in fact deposited by some of the alleged Sub-lessees and not by the lessees themselves and, therefore, the lessees will be deemed to have violated the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5 C. P. C., and hence their defence is liable to he struck off.

(3.) Order XV, Rule 5 C. P. C. was added to the Code in order to impel the defendants "to deposit the rent as and when it falls due on pain of having their defence struck off. The object of this Act was to enable the plaintiff to have the rent paid to him or deposited to his credit as and when it falls due. So long as the object of the statutory provision is achieved, undue technicality should not be allowed to prevail to shut out the defence of the tenants from being considered by the court. Order XV, Rule 5 C. P. C. provides as follows: