NASRUDDIN Vs. MANJOO RANI AGARWAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Shahid Masun, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shubham Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 08.04.2011 passed by Judge Small Causes Court, by which he has struck off the defence of the petitioner under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. and further the order dated 16.10.2012 passed by the revisional court rejecting the revision of the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner is a tenant and was required to deposit the rent during the continuance of the suit within a week from the date of its accrual under Order 15 Rule 5. Order 15 Rule 5 provides that in case of any default in making the deposit, the Court may, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) strike off his defence. Sub-rule (2) says that before making an order for striking off defence, the Court may consider any representation by the defendant in that behalf provided such representation is made within ten days of the first hearing or, of the expiry of the week referred to in sub-section (1) as the case may be. Trial court found that the petitioner has not deposited the rent from the period of January, 2010 within the stipulated period and has struck off the defence of the petitioner. The revisional court observed that for the deposit of the rent for the month of January, 2010 an application was submitted on 15.02.2012. However, the order was not immediately passed and the same was passed on 12.07.2010 and the petitioner deposited the amount on the same date. Therefore, there was no default. Revisional court however, held that the rent for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.08.2010 has been deposited on 14.07.2010 and further for the month of September, tender was placed on 24.1.2010 and for the deposit of the rent for the period 01.01.2010 to 03.04.2011 it is not clear that when the tender was submitted and the deposit of rent from January 2011 is not clear. The petitioner pleaded that for the deposit of rent for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.08.2010 the petitioner has submitted the tender on 15.02.2010 along with application, 11-C but the petitioner failed to substantiate his case. Admittedly, the amount was deposited on 14.07.2010. Further there is clear default in depositing the rent from the month of September. Admittedly, tender was placed on 24.11.2010. No explanation has been given before the revisional authority about the late deposit of the amount.