Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. 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. We are, therefore, faced with a situation where 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 us to no other conclusion except 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."

24. 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.

50. The provisions contained under Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C., have been consistently held to be mandatory, and it has been held that the benefits conferred on tenants under the rent control legislation can be enjoyed only on the basis of strict compliance of the statutory provisions. There is no provision to claim exemption from complying with the conditions under Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C. apart from consideration of a representation made by the defendant as per Order 15 Rule 5 (2) C.P.C.

51. It may be noticed that Explanation 2 to Order XV Rule 5 (1) C.P.C. stipulates deduction of the amount deposited under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in respect of the amount to be deposited at or before the first date of hearing. The benefit of such deduction of the amount if any deposited under Section 30, however, has not been provided in respect of the monthly amount to be deposited through out the continuation of the suit.

56. The present case, however, is not a case where the revisionist is claiming condonation of the default in making complaince with the statutory provisions. It is a case where the revisionist claims exemption from complying with the mandatory provisions as contained under Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C., and in the absence of any provision whereunder exemption can be claimed from complying with the conditions under Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C. apart from consideration of a representation in terms of Rule 5 (2) thereof the claim of the revisionist is clearly unsustainable.