Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 CPC with a prayer that the defence be struck off as the defendant had failed to comply with the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 CPC. 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 the 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 & Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act') pursuant to the application filed by the defendant on 23rd August, 2002 and the receipts were filed. It was, therefore, prayed that the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XV Rule 5 CPC be rejected.

11. What has to be noticed in Order XV Rule 5 CPC is that the Legislature while defining "monthly amount due" which has to be deposited during the continuation of the suit has deliberately excluded the deduction of any amount deposited under Section 30 of the Act. Thus, the same Rule defines "entire amount admitted by him to be due" and "monthly income due" occurring in the first part and second part respectively of the Rules and while the former phrase stipulates the deduction of the amount deposited under Section 30 of the Act, the second part omits to mention such a deduction. It has, therefore, to be inferred that the Legislature has, in its wisdom, deliberately made a provision for deduction of the deposit of the amount under Section 30 of the Act only in respect of the amount to be deposited at or before the first date of hearing and not in respect of the monthly amount to be deposited throughout the continuation of the suit. This, coupled with the fact that both Explanation 2 and Explanation 3, referred to above provide "after making no other deduction except..." clearly leads to the conclusion that only such deductions are to be made which have been specifically provided. The "monthly amount due" has to be construed in the manner provided for in Explanation 3 to Rule 5 (1) of Order XV CPC and in no other manner.

In view of the aforesaid principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Atma Ram (supra), it has to be held that the tenant must comply with the requirements of Order XV Rule 5 CPC and make the deposits strictly in accordance with the procedure contained therein. A deposit which is not made in consonance with the aforesaid Rule cannot enure to the benefit of the tenant and, therefore, only that amount can be deducted from the "monthly amount" required to be deposited by the tenant during the pendency of the suit which is specifically mentioned in Explanation 3 to Rule 5 (1) of Order XV CPC.

20. The Supreme Court in Smt. Satya Kumari Kamthan v. Noor Ahmed and Ors. 1992 (2) ARC 82 examined the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 CPC as amended in Uttar Pradesh. The landlord had moved an application for striking off the defence of the tenant. The Civil Judge noticed that there was a default in depositing the admitted rent for the months of August, September, October, November and December, 1980 and the tenant had not made any 'representation' under Order XV, Rule 5(2) CPC and, accordingly, struck off the defence. The Revision was also rejected in view of the judgment of this Court in Puran Chand v. Praveen Gupta 1980 AWC 712. The writ petition filed in this Court was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Revisional Authority with a direction to dispose of the Revision on merits in the light of the observatjons made by the Supreme Court in Bimal Chand Jain. The Supreme Court in Satya Kumari Kamthan while interpreting the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 CPC as amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh and after considering the decision of this Court in Puran Chand Jain and the decision of the Supreme Court in Bimal Chand Jain observed as follows: