Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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.

31. In a similar set of facts, in a case of default in making the monthly deposit from the year 2007 where the application seeking permission to make deposit the amount was made at the fag end of the year 2010 this Court in the case of Sunahri Lal vs. Smt. Premwati7, taking note of the provision under sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 under Order XV CPC which requires making of representation within seven days of default, held that the application seeking permission to deposit after the long delay was just an eye wash and was meaningless. The observations made by the Court in this regard are as follows:

"5. In reply to the above submission, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submitted that as admittedly the defendant-revisionist had not deposited the monthly amount before the Court concerned and the amount deposited, under Section 30 of the Act, cannot be adjusted against the amount required to be deposited on monthly basis, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, the order passed by the Court below cannot be said to be against the provisions of law so as to justify interference in the revisional jurisdiction. It was further submitted that there is no need for any permission to make a deposit and, therefore, the application of the defendant-revisionist was completely misconceived and the same cannot be taken as a representation which needed the attention of the Court. It was submitted that only for passing of the tender challan, permission is required when the amount is tendered but, in the instant case, the defendant-revisionist never tendered the amount for deposit before the Court concerned, therefore, the said application was completely meaningless and it cannot also be treated as a representation. It was also submitted that the default in making monthly deposit had been from the year 2007, that is, the year in which the revisionist had put in appearance whereas the application for permission to deposit was sought at the fag end of the year 2010. It has been submitted that sub rule (2) of Rule 15 of Order XV CPC requires that the representation ought to be within 7 days of default. It has thus been submitted that the application seeking permission to make deposit in the year 2010 is just an eye wash and is meaningless.