LAWS(ALL)-2008-4-249

BRAHM DUTT Vs. DAYA RAM

Decided On April 15, 2008
BRAHM DUTT Appellant
V/S
DAYA RAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant of S. C. C. Suit No. 6 of 2002 has filed this petition for setting aside the order dated 17th December, 2003 passed by the judge, Small Cause Courts whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under order XV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'c. P. C. ') for striking off the defence was allowed. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the order dated 21st January, 2008 by which the revision filed by him under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 for setting aside the aforesaid order was dismissed.

(2.) THE records of the writ petition indicate that the aforesaid S. C. C. Suit no. 6 of 2002 had been filed by the plaintiff-respondent for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent with the assertion that the defendant was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 360/- per month plus house tax and water tax in all amounting to rs. 430/- per month; that the defendant had not paid rent with effect from 31st december, 1997 and that by the notice dated 16th April, 2002 received by the defendant on 19th April, 2002 the tenancy was terminated and arrears of rent was demanded but the defendant did not pay the arrears of rent and nor did he vaca,te the premises.

(3.) THE summons were served upon the defendant and the written statement was ultimately filed on 26th October, 2002. The plaintiff moved an application 30-C on 26th April, 2003 under Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. with a prayer that the defence be struck off as the defendant had failed to comply with the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. The defendant filed his objections to the aforesaid application and asserted that the rate of rent was Rs. 100/- per month only; that the rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month had been paid to the plaintiff up to 31st March, 2002 though no receipts were issued; that entire arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month up to 31st July, 2003 had been deposited under section 30 (1) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' pursuant to the application filed by the defendant on 23rd August, 2002 and the re-ceipts were filed. It was, therefore, prayed that the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. be rejected.