SARDAR IQBAL SINGH Vs. KM. SARSWATI DEVI VARSHANEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vipin Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for respondent.

(2.) It is contended that in order to attract Order 15, Rule 5 C.P.C. it is only the admitted amount by tenant which was to be paid and not the rent claimed by landlord. In the present case tenant admitted rent at the rate of Rs. 48/- per month while the landlord claimed it at the rate of Rs. 180.00 per month. The Revisional Court has held that for the purpose of Order 15, Rule 5 C.P.C. the amount already deposited by petitioner-tenant at admitted rent of Rs. 48/-, if taken into consideration, still there is a deficiency of only Rs. 24.00, hence it has held that since there is non-compliance of Order 15, Rule 5 C.P.C. which is a mandatory provision, therefore, the Trial Court has rightly struck off the defence of petitioner-tenant. It is contended that covering a period of about 15 years in order to find out compliance of Order 15, Rule 5 C.P.C., if there was a shortage of only Rs. 24.00, the same would not render defendant-tenant to suffer mischief 2 covered by Order 15, Rule 5 inasmuch as it is not such a case where it can be said that tenant has committed a default in compliance of Order 15, Rule 5 and the court below has misdirected itself in directing to struck off the defence of petitioner.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent submitted that compliance of Order 15, Rule 5 is mandatory and any deviation irrespective of its extent and magnitude will render the defendant liable to face consequences and, therefore, the orders impugned in this writ petition have rightly been passed and warrant no interference.