# Hasmuddin v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 1176
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-15
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1071 of 2010
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hasmuddin-v-state-of-u-p-49900
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Appeal- - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 304B & 498A -
Against conviction under IPC read with
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961- Accused married the deceased as
per Muslim rites and rituals- deceased
burnt alive by pouring kerosene oil on her
body- dying declaration- intact- conviction
by trial court on account of homicidal
death- upheld. (Para 10)

HELD:
The
first
dying
declaration
dated
22.02.2006 implicates the accused and there is
no doubt in our mind that the said dying
declaration
fulfil
all
the
requirements
as
enunciated by the 3 Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Govindappa & ors. Vs St. of Karnataka,
(2010) 6 SCC 533, and rightly acted upon by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge. However, the
second dying declaration even if it is brushed
aside, the name of the husband is resurfaced also
and post mortem report will permit us to concur
with the learned Additional Sessions Judge that
the death was homicidal death. (Para 10)

B. Harshness of sentence- reformative
theory of punishment in India- proper
sentence- sentence should not be either
excessively
harsh
or-
principle
of
proportionality to be followed- discretion
of court in awarding sentence cannot be
exercised
arbitrarily
or
whimsically-
sentence of life imprisonment substituted
with imprisonment already gone- Appeal
partly allowed. (Para 13, 14, 15 and 18)

HELD: 'Proper Sentence' was explained in Deo
Narain Mandal Vs St. of UP [(2004) 7 SCC 257]
by observing that Sentence should not be either
excessively harsh or ridiculously low. While
determining the quantum of sentence, the court
should
bear
in
mind
the
'principle
of
proportionality'. Sentence should be based on
facts of a given case. Gravity of offence, manner
of commission of crime, age and sex of accused
should be taken into account. Discretion of
Court in awarding sentence cannot be exercised
arbitrarily or whimsically. (Para 14)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

27. िारा-122 ख., (1), के अनुसार यचद ग्राम पंिायर् में
चनचहर् चकसी भूचम को चकसी व्यचक्त द्वारा क्षचर् पहुाँिायी िार्ी है अथिा
दुचिाचनयोग चकया िार्ा है। र्ो ग्राम पंिायर् उसको ग्रहण करने एिं उसके
कब्िे को िापस प्राप्त करने के चलए अचिकारी है। ग्राम पंिायर् की भूचम
चनयमानुसार ही चकसी व्यचक्त को आिंचटर् की िा सकर्ी है र्था िकरोड़
की भूचम चकसी भी दशा में चकसी भी व्यचक्त को आिंचटर् नहीं की िा सकर्ी
है। यचद ऐसा अिैि अचदक्रमण पाया िार्ा है र्ो सहायक कलेक्टर िारा-
122 ख. (2) के अंर्गार् ऐसे व्यचक्त को नोचटस िारी करेगा। िारा-122
ख, (3) के अनुसार यचद स्पष्टीकरण अपयााप्त पाया िार्ा है र्ो उसकी
िेदखली र्था क्षचर्पूचर्ा प्रदान करने का आदेश पाररर् करेगा िो मालगुिारी
की र्रह िसूल योग्य होगी र्था िारा-122 ख (4), के अनुसार यचद ऐसे
व्यचक्त को दोिी नहीं पाया िार्ा है र्ो नोचटस समाप्त कर चदया िाएगा।

28. िारा-122 ख, (4) क के अनुसार सहायक कलेक्टर के
आदेश से क्षुब्ि व्यचक्त र्ीन चदन के अंदर कलेक्टर के समक्ष चनगरानी प्रस्र्ुर्
कर सकर्ा है, र्था चनगरानी सहायक कलेक्टर का आदेश उप-िारा-4(क),
एिं (4) घ, के अंर्गार् अंचर्म होगा, अथाार्् चनगरानी अथिा उप-िारा-
4(घ), के अंर्गार् प्रस्र्ुर् िाद सक्षम न्यायालय के चनणाय के अध्यिीन
होगा। उप-िारा-4(ङ). एक प्रचर्िंि आरोचपर् करर्ा है चक यचद उप-िारा-
4(क), के अंर्गार् चनगरानी प्रस्र्ुर् की गई है र्ो उप-िारा-4(घ), के
अंर्गार् िाद प्रस्र्ुर् नहीं चकया िा सकेगा।

29. उप-िारा-4(ि), एक उपिार अनुसूचिर् िाचर् एिं
अनुसूचिर् िनिाचर् के कृचि श्रचमकों को प्रदान करर्ा है चक यचद िह िारा
132, िमींदारी उन्मूलन अचिचनयम् के अंर्गार् ग्राम-पंिायर् में चनचहर्
चकसी भूचम पर 13-05-2007 के पूिा से कब्िे में है र्था उसके पास
3.125 एकड़ से अचिक भूचम नहीं है, र्ो ऐसे व्यचक्त के चिरुद्ध कोई
कायािाही नहीं की िाएगी। चनचिर् ही यािी गुप्ता चिरादरी का होने के कारण
इस लाभ को प्राप्त करने का अचिकारी नहीं है।

30. िोि चसंह चिरुद्ध उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य 2000 आर.डी.
233., सूरि िली चिरुद्ध गााँिसभा 1982 ए.डब््यू. सी.(आर.) 149
एिं श्रीपचर् चिरुद्ध गााँिसभा 1994 (23), ए.एल.आर (आर.) 18 में
यह अििाररर् चकया गया चक गााँिसभा की भूचम पर अिैि चनमााण,
िृक्षारोपण र्था िकरोड़ के चकसी भाग को अपनी भूचम में चमला लेना
गााँिसभा की सम्पचत्त की क्षचर् करने एिं उसका दुचिाचनयोग करने के उदाहरण
हैं। प्रस्र्ुर् िाद में ग्राम-पंिायर् के िकरोड को यािी द्वारा अपने िक में
चमलाकर ग्राम पंिायर् को क्षचर् एिं दुचिाचनयोग काररर् चकया गया।

31. डालचसंह चिरुद्ध अचर्ररक्त कलेक्टर मेरठ 2006 ( 101),
आर.डी.(एि.) 7, हाईकोटा में अििाररर् चकया गया चक अिैि कब्िा
संिंिी चनणाय र्थ्य का चनष्किा है र्था यह उच्ि न्यायालय द्वारा खचण्डर्
चकये िाने योग्य है। यह चनणायि चिचि भी यािी के चिरुद्ध प्रयुक्त होर्ी है।

32. उपरोक्त आिारों पर यह चनष्किा चनकलर्ा है चक यािी ने ग्राम
पंिायर् के िकरोड गाटा संख्या-461/1390 के 0.019 हेक्टेयर भूचम
पर अिैि कब्िा कर ग्राम पंिायर् को क्षचर् काररर् चकया है र्था ग्राम
पंिायर् की सम्पचत्त का दुचिाचनयोग चकया है, अर्ः उक्त 0.019 हेक्टेयर
भूचम से यािी िेदखल चकये िाने योग्य है र्था इस संिंि में पाररर् प्रश्नगर्
आदेश र्थ्यर्ः एिं चिचिर्ः सही एिं िैि है।

33. िहााँ र्क क्षचर्पूचर्ा के आरोपण का प्रश्न है यह क्षचर्पूचर्ा का
आरोपण चनयम- 115 द (ii), के अनुसार आकचलर् कर आरोचपर् चकया
िाना िाचहए परन्र्ु इस संिंि में प्रभगर् आदेशों में कोई चििरण प्रस्र्ुर् नहीं
चकया गया है चक उक्त चनयम का अनुपालन करर्े हुए पााँि सौ रुपए प्रचर् ििा
की िनराचश की क्षचर्पूचर्ा की राचश का भुगर्ान का आरोपण चकया गया है,
अर्एि यह याचिका अंशर्ः क्षचर्पूचर्ा की िनराचश के आरोपण के संिंि में
स्िीकार चकये िाने योग्य है।

आदेश

34. यह याचिका अंशर्ः अपर र्हसीलदार, कानपुर नगर के
आदेश चदनांचकर् 10-01-2000 र्था चनगरानी न्यायालय के चनणाय
चदनांचकर् 31-07-2000, िािल िेदखली यािी उपरोक्तानुसार खचण्डर्
की िार्ी है र्था िािर् आरोपण क्षचर्पूचर्ा की िनराचश अंशर्ः इस प्रकार
स्िीकार की िार्ी है चक चिपक्षीगण उत्तर-प्रदेश िमींदारी उन्मूलन एिम् भूचम
सुिार चनयम, 1952 के चनयम115 (ङ) एिम् (ि), के अनुसार चिर्नी
क्षचर्पूचर्ा की िनराचश िनर्ी है, उर्नी क्षचर्पूचर्ा की िनराचश का आरोपण
एक माह में करे र्था उसे यािी र्दुपरान्र् र्ीस चदिस के अंदर भुगर्ान करे।
यह आदेश अनुपालनाथा चिलाचिकारी कानपुर नगर को प्रेचिर् हो।
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 1176
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1071 of 2010

Hasmuddin ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
3 All. Hasmuddin Vs. State of U.P.
1177
Sri Arvind Agrawal, Sri Dileep Kumar, Sri M.A.
Siddiqui

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Sri Rahul Chaudhary, Sri S.P.S. Rathi

A. Criminal Law - Appeal- - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 304B & 498A -
Against conviction under IPC read with
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961- Accused married the deceased as
per Muslim rites and rituals- deceased
burnt alive by pouring kerosene oil on her
body- dying declaration- intact- conviction
by trial court on account of homicidal
death- upheld. (Para 10)

HELD:
The
first
dying
declaration
dated
22.02.2006 implicates the accused and there is
no doubt in our mind that the said dying
declaration
fulfil
all
the
requirements
as
enunciated by the 3 Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Govindappa & ors. Vs St. of Karnataka,
(2010) 6 SCC 533, and rightly acted upon by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge. However, the
second dying declaration even if it is brushed
aside, the name of the husband is resurfaced also
and post mortem report will permit us to concur
with the learned Additional Sessions Judge that
the death was homicidal death. (Para 10)

B. Harshness of sentence- reformative
theory of punishment in India- proper
sentence- sentence should not be either
excessively
harsh
or-
principle
of
proportionality to be followed- discretion
of court in awarding sentence cannot be
exercised
arbitrarily
or
whimsically-
sentence of life imprisonment substituted
with imprisonment already gone- Appeal
partly allowed. (Para 13, 14, 15 and 18)

HELD: 'Proper Sentence' was explained in Deo
Narain Mandal Vs St. of UP [(2004) 7 SCC 257]
by observing that Sentence should not be either
excessively harsh or ridiculously low. While
determining the quantum of sentence, the court
should
bear
in
mind
the
'principle
of
proportionality'. Sentence should be based on
facts of a given case. Gravity of offence, manner
of commission of crime, age and sex of accused
should be taken into account. Discretion of
Court in awarding sentence cannot be exercised
arbitrarily or whimsically. (Para 14)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Govindappa & ors. Vs St. of Karn., (2010) 6
SCC 533

2. Mohd. Giasuddin Vs St. of A.P., AIR 1977 SC
1926

3. Deo Narain Mandal Vs St. of U.P. (2004) 7
SCC 257

4.Ravada Sasikala Vs St. of A.P. AIR 2017 SC
1166

5. Jameel Vs St. of U.P. [(2010) 12 SCC 532

6. Guru Basavraj Vs St. of Karn. (2012) 8 SCC
734

7. Sumer Singh Vs Surajbhan Singh (2014) 7
SCC 323

8. St. of Punj. Vs Bawa Singh (2015) 3 SCC 441

9. Raj Bala Vs St. of Har. (2016) 1 SCC 463

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.& Hon'ble Arun Kumar
Singh Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri M.A. Siddiqui, learned
counsel for the appellant and learned
A.G.A. for the State.

2. Present criminal appeal challenges
judgment and order dated 05.02.2010
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court No.4, District Firozabad
in Sessions Trial No.424 of 2006 (State vs
Hasmuddin) in connection with Case Crime
No. 26 of 2006, Police Station- Ramgarh,
District Firozabad, whereby the learned
Additional Sessions Judge has convicted
the
accused-appellant,
Hasmuddin
for
1178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
commission of offence under Section 304B
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC')
and
sentenced
him
to
undergo
imprisonment for life, under Section 498-A
to
undergo
two
years
rigorous
imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and
under Section 3/ 4 Dowry Prohibition Act
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
year with fine of Rs.500/- in default of
payment
of
fine
further
one
year's
additional imprisonment. All the sentences
shall run concurrently.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the
record are that the accused-appellant was
married to the deceased three and half
month prior to the incident with Muslim
rites and rituals and also gave one
motorcycle and some house hold articles to
the appellant as dowry. The In-laws were
demanding rupees one lakh for bangles
business. The deceased was done to death
by setting her ablazed by pouring kerosene
oil by her-in-laws in connection with nonfulfillment of rupees one lakh of demand of
dowry. She was admitted in the hospital
and her dying declaration was recorded in
which she has specifically made allegation
against the In-laws. During the treatment
informant's daughter succumbed to her
injuries.

4. On the basis of F.I.R., the
investigation started and charge-sheet was
laid. The learned Magistrate summoned the
accused and committed the case to the
Sessions Court as the offences alleged to
have been committed were triable by the
Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge
framed charges under Section 304B, 498A
IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. On being summoned, the accused
pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried.

6. The Trial started and the
prosecution examined 14 witnesses who are
as follows:

1
Mohammad Saddiq
PW1
2
Wasim
PW2
3
Nasruddin
PW3
4
Dr.
Sanjay
Kumar
Gupta
PW4
5
Dr. R.K. Garg
PW5
6
Brijpal Singh
PW6
7
Sub- Inspector, Jaidev
Singh
PW7
8
Constable Gajraj Singh PW8
9
Dr. N.P. Pandey
PW9
10 Sishya Pal Singh
PW10
11 Kripa Shankar Dubey
PW11
12 R.V. Singh
PW12
13 Subhas Chand
PW13
14 Dr. Vinay Kumar
PW14

7. In support of ocular version
following documents were filed:

1
F.I.R.
Ex.Ka.10
2
Written Report
Ex.Ka.1
3
Dying Declaration
Ex. Ka.5
4
Recovery
memo
of
clothes of Body
Ex.Ka.13
5
Injury Report
Ex. Ka. 4
6
Postmortem Report
Ex.Ka.3
7
Charge-sheet
Ex. Ka. 11
8
Site Plan
Ex.Ka.12
9
 Second declaration
 Ex. Ka 15
3 All. Hasmuddin Vs. State of U.P.
1179

8. At the end of the trial and after
recording the statement of the accused
under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing
arguments on behalf of prosecution and the
defence,
the
learned
Sessions
Judge
convicted the appellant as mentioned
above.

9. It is an admitted position of fact
that death occurred due to setting ablaze of
the
deceased. There
are
two dying
declarations however while going through
the record, it is clear that the appellant is
the author of the incident and therefore
after arguing the matter at length, learned
counsel for the appellant requested this
Court to consider the sentence of the
accused as he has been convicted under
Section 304B IPC for life and septicaemial
death is occurred after two and half month
of medical treatment of the deceased.

10. The first dying declaration dated
22.02.2006 implicates the accused and
there is no doubt in our mind that the said
dying declaration fulfil all the requirements
as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Govindappa and others vs. State
of Karnataka, (2010) 6 SCC 533, and
rightly
acted
upon
by
the
learned
Additional Sessions Judge. However, the
second dying declaration even if it is
brushed aside, the name of the husband is
resurfaced also and post mortem report will
permit us to concur with the learned
Additional Sessions Judge that the death
was homicidal death.

11. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the
State
submits
that
looking
to
the
gruesomeness of the offence and the
evidence of prosecution witnesses, this
Court should not show any leniency in the
matter. It is further submitted by learned
A.G.A. that ingredients of Section 304B of
IPC are rightly held to be made out by the
learned Sessions Judge who has applied the
law to the facts in case.

12. We have considered the evidence
of witnesses and the Post mortem report
which states that the injuries on the body of
the deceased would be the cause of death
and that it was homicidal death, we concur
with the finding of the Court below.
However, it is to be seen whether the
sentence awarded is too harsh. In this
regard, we have to analyse the theory of
punishment prevailing in India.

13. In Mohd. Giasuddin Vs. State of
AP, [AIR 1977 SC 1926], explaining
rehabilitary & reformative aspects in
sentencing it has been observed by the
Supreme Court:

"Crime is a pathological aberration.
The criminal can ordinarily be redeemed
and the state has to rehabilitate rather than
avenge. The sub-culture that leads to antesocial behaviour has to be countered not by
undue cruelty but by reculturization.
Therefore, the focus of interest in penology
in the individual and the goal is salvaging
him for the society. The infliction of harsh
and savage punishment is thus a relic of
past and regressive times. The human today
vies sentencing as a process of reshaping a
person
who
has
deteriorated
into
criminality and the modern community has
a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the
offender as a means of a social defence.
Hence a therapeutic, rather than an 'in
terrorem' outlook should prevail in our
criminal courts, since brutal incarceration
of the person merely produces laceration of
his mind. If you are to punish a man
retributively, you must injure him. If you
are to reform him, you must improve him
and, men are not improved by injuries."
1180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. 'Proper Sentence' was explained in
Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP
[(2004) 7 SCC 257] by observing that
Sentence should not be either excessively
harsh
or
ridiculously
low.
While
determining the quantum of sentence, the
court should bear in mind the 'principle of
proportionality'. Sentence should be based
on facts of a given case. Gravity of offence,
manner of commission of crime, age and
sex of accused should be taken into
account. Discretion of Court in awarding
sentence cannot be exercised arbitrarily or
whimsically.

15. In Ravada Sasikala vs. State of
A.P. AIR 2017 SC 1166, the Supreme Court
referred the judgments in Jameel vs State
of UP [(2010) 12 SCC 532], Guru
Basavraj vs State of Karnatak, [(2012) 8
SCC 734], Sumer Singh vs Surajbhan
Singh, [(2014) 7 SCC 323], State of
Punjab vs Bawa Singh, [(2015) 3 SCC
441], and Raj Bala vs State of Haryana,
[(2016) 1 SCC 463] and has reiterated that,
in operating the sentencing system, law
should adopt corrective machinery or
deterrence based on factual matrix. Facts
and given circumstances in each case,
nature of crime, manner in which it was
planned
and
committed,
motive
for
commission of crime, conduct of accused,
nature of weapons used and all other
attending circumstances are relevant facts
which
would
enter
into
area
of
consideration. Further, undue sympathy in
sentencing would do more harm to justice
dispensations and would undermine the
public confidence in the efficacy of law. It
is the duty of every court to award proper
sentence having regard to nature of offence
and manner of its commission. The
supreme court further said that courts must
not only keep in view the right of victim of
crime but also society at large. While
considering
imposition
of
appropriate
punishment, the impact of crime on the
society as a whole and rule of law needs to
be balanced. The judicial trend in the
country has been towards striking a balance
between reform and punishment. The
protection of society and stamping out
criminal proclivity must be the object of
law which can be achieved by imposing
appropriate sentence on criminals and
wrongdoers. Law, as a tool to maintain
order and peace, should effectively meet
challenges confronting the society, as
society could not long endure and develop
under
serious
threats
of
crime
and
disharmony. It is therefore, necessary to
avoid undue leniency in imposition of
sentence.
Thus,
the
criminal
justice
jurisprudence adopted in the country is not
retributive but reformative and corrective.
At the same time, undue harshness should
also be avoided keeping in view the
reformative approach underlying in our
criminal justice system.

16. Keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case and also keeping
in view criminal jurisprudence in our
country which is reformative and corrective
and not retributive, this Court considers
that no accused person is incapable of
being reformed and therefore, all measures
should be applied to give them an
opportunity of reformation in order to bring
them in the social stream.

17. As discussed above, 'reformative
theory of punishment' is to be adopted and
for that reason, it is necessary to impose
punishment keeping in view the 'doctrine of
proportionality'. It appears from perusal of
impugned judgment that sentence awarded
by learned trial court for life term is very
harsh keeping in view the entirety of facts
and circumstances of the case and gravity
3 All. Anoop Mehrishi & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar Mishra
1181
of offence. Hon'ble Apex Court, as
discussed above, has held that undue
harshness should be avoided taking into
account
the
reformative
approach
underlying in criminal justice system.

18. The punishment under Section
498A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act are concerned
the accused is in jail for more than 12 years
and hence the said punishment and default
punishment have also completed, therefore,
we need not observe to them. As far as
Section 304B IPC is concerned, the
punishment would be substituted from life
imprisonment to imprisonment already
undergone.

19. Learned Additional Sessions
Judge has not imposed any fine or any
default sentence under Section 304 B IPC.
We also do not propose the same. We
concur with it and substitute the sentence
that already undergone. The accusedappellant be set free forthwith, if not
wanted in any other case.

20. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. Judgment and order passed
by the learned Sessions Judge shall stand
modified to the aforesaid extent. Record be
sent back to the Trial Court forthwith.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 1181
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.02.2023
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

S.C.C. Revision No. 64 of 2022

Anoop Mehrishi & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
Ashok Kumar Mishra ...Respondent

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Rahul Mishra, Sri Rishi Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondent:
Ms. Vaishali Sahu, Sri Atul Dayal (Sr.
Advocate)

Civil Law -Provincial Small Cause Courts
Act, 1887 - Section 25 - Revision-
Landlord filed SCC suit- eviction of tenants
from the rented shop- Application under
Order XV Rule 5 CPC by landlord- tenant's
defence struck off by impugned order-
plea
of
holding
possession
in
part
performance of an agreement to sell taken
by tenant- suit for specific performance
also pending between the parties- no
monthly deposit due as mandated under
Order XV Rule 5(1) made- payment made
towards consideration in an agreement to
sell not made in the capacity of a tenant-
tenant's defence rightly struck off- Trial
court's order upheld - Revision dismissed
(Para - 10, 11, and 12)

HELD: A bare reading of the provisions of Rule
5 of Order XV make it clear that there are two
parts of the tenant's obligation to deposit rent in
Court in a case where the landlord sues the
tenant for eviction, after determination of his
lease, as also for recovery of rent and damages
for use and occupation. The first part requires
the tenant to deposit at or before the first
hearing of the suit, the entire amount on
account of rent, damage etc. admitted by him to
be due together with interest thereon @ 9% per
annum. The second part requires the tenant to
deposit throughout the pendency of the suit, the
monthly amount of rent within a week of its
accrual, whether he admits it to be due or not.
The Rule further provides that non-compliance
of either of the two parts of sub-Rule (1) of Rule
5 of Order XV of the Code entitles the Court to
strike off the tenant's defence. There is a
distinction between the expression 'entire
amount admitted by him to be due' in the first
part of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 5 of Order XV of the
Code and the expression 'monthly amount due',
occurring in the second part of sub-Rule (1) of
Rule 5 of Order XV. (Para 10)

So far as deposit to be made on the first date of
hearing is concerned, there are three kinds of