PRAN NATH Vs. CHANDRA PRAKASH SAKSENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This defendant's revision arises out of a suit for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent, water tax and damages for use and occupation of the shop situated at Uikhimpur Kheri, (for short the 'shop in dispute') and is directed against the Judgment and order dated 21.5.1985 passed by IInd Additional District Judge/Judge, S.C.C., Lakhimpur Kheri, striking off the defence of the defendant-applicant under Order XV. Rule 5, C.P.C.

(2.) Brief and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed S.C.C. No. 9 of 1983 for ejectment of the applicant from the shop in dispute and for recovery of arrears of rent etc.. on the ground of default, after serving the notice of demand and termination of tenancy. The suit was contested by the defendant-applicant, who has disputed rate of rent and pleaded that the amount of Rs. 5.000 was already deposited by him as security, if the said amount is adjusted in the amount of rent, he could not be held to be defaulter. During the pendency of the suit, application No. 44C was filed by the plaintiff-respondent, praying to strike off the defence, under Order XV, Rule 5. C.P.C. It was stated that the defendant-applicant failed to deposit the admitted rent and interest in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid rule. Therefore, his defence was liable to be struck off. Said application was objected to and opposed by the defendant applicant, alleging that the rent for the period commencing from 1.9.1980 to 30.4.1985 was already deposited in the Court. Therefore, there was no question of striking off his defence, and that application filed by the plaintiff-respondent was liable to be rejected. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties. Court below allowed the application filed by the plain tiff-res port dent and struck off the defence of the defendant-applicant vide its judgment and order dated 21.5.1985. The Court below has recorded following finding in the impugned order : "5. The defendant did not deposit any interest 9% per annum on the amount of arrears of rent of Rs. 18,000 deposited by him on 13.8.1984. Thus, he failed to comply with the provisions of Order XV. Rule 5 (1). C.P.C. Thus, the defendant failed to make the deposits in accordance with the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5. C.P.C. and therefore the defence of the defendant is liable to be struck off. The application 44-C is allowed. The defence of the defendant is struck off under Order XV. Rule 5, C.P.C."

(3.) It was in the year. 1985 that the above noted revision was filed in this Court. This Court entertained the revision and also granted interim order, staying the further proceedings in the suit. Since then, the proceedings of the suit are heldup.