PARVEZ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THE records of the writ petition indicate that the landlord had instituted three SCC Suits for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent in respect of three shops being SCC Suit No. 2 of 2002, SCC Suit No. 3 of 2002 and SCC Suit No. 4 of 2002. In these three suits the plaintiff-landlord filed three separate applications under Order XV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the "c. P. C) with a prayer that the defence may be struck off as the defendant had not complied with the requirements of Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. Objections were filed by the defendant and ultimately the Judge, Small Cause Courts allowed the applications filed under Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. observing that the defendant had not deposited the monthly amount due within a week from its accrual each month during the continuation of the suit. The Revisions filed by the defendant for setting aside these orders was dismissed.

(2.) A close examination of the petition shows that the petitioner has mixed up the orders and the applications in the three suits as in this petition he has annexed the plaint of SCC Suit No. 2 of 2002, the order dated 5th September, 2007 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Courts in SCC Suit No. 4 of 2002 by which the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. was allowed and the judgment and order dated 18th January, 2008 (wrongly mentioned as 18th December, 2008 in the certified copy) passed in Revision No. 9 of 2007 arising out of SCC Suit No. 3 of 2002. Thus, there is complete confusion in the writ petition as the plaint of one suit has been filed, the order of the Judge, Small Cause Courts in another suit has been filed and the quashing of the order of the Revisional Court has been sought which arises out of the third Suit. The petition indicates that the petitioner has sought the quashing of the Revisional order which is in respect of SCC Suit No. 3 of 2002 but the order of the Judge, Small Cause Court in SCC Suit No. 4 of 2002 has also been sought. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, however, urged that the Courts below committed an illegality in allowing the application filed under Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. and that they have wrongly not taken into consideration the amount of Rs. 15,000/- which had been paid by the tenant as "pagdi" at the time of construction of the aforesaid shops which amount was required to be adjusted towards the monthly amount which the defendant was required to deposit during the continuation of the suit.