BHAP @ WAHAB Vs. SATISH KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against orders dated 6.9.2012, striking off the defence of the defendant-petitioner under Order 15, Rule 5 CPC, as well as the order 13.10.2015, affirming it in revision.

(2.) Facts, in brief, giving rise to filing of this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India are that defendant-petitioner is a tenant of premises being House No.215-A West end Road, Meerut, since long. In proceedings under Sec. 30 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, rent is being deposited by defendant-petitioner since the year 1991. In the year 2008 proceedings for eviction was initiated before the Judge, Small Causes Court, on the allegation that rent from 17.6.2004 to 10.6.2007 and damages since thereafter has not been paid. A written statement was filed by the petitioner in the matter on 15.7.2008. An application thereafter was filed by the plaintiff-respondent/landlord under Order 15, Rule 5 C.P.C. on the ground that since the admitted rent has not been deposited on the date of first hearing, as such, the defence of the defendant-petitioner is liable to be struck off. A reply to this application has been filed by the defendant-petitioner, stating that he has already deposited rent in proceedings under Sec. 30 since 1991 and in respect of proceedings pending before the Judge, Small Causes Court, the rent for the period from 1.9.2005 to 31.8.2011 has been deposited on 21.7.2011, and therefore, the defence of the defendant-petitioner is not liable to be struck off. Prayer was also made to extend the period for depositing rent.

(3.) Both the courts below, however, have found that the defence of petitioner is liable to be struck off under Order 15, Rule 5 CPC.