# Smt. Anju Srivastav Revisionist v. Sri Saurabh Birla & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 45
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-04
- **Case number:** S.C.C. Revision No. 23 of 2020
- **Bench:** Saral Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-anju-srivastav-revisionist-v-sri-saurabh-birla-anr-45839
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Civil
Procedure,1908-Section
115
-
The
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act,1887-
Section 25 - The Transfer of Property Act,
1882 -Section 106-ejectment and arrears of
rent-notice served upon the applicant but failed
to comply with the same-once the notice
terminating the tenancy meets the requirement
of section 106 of Act,1882 and where the suit
property is out of the purview of U.P. Act No. 13
of 1972, the issue of default in payment of rent
is immaterial-the applicant used the property
without paying rent- the trial court rightly
awarded the damages at the rate of Rs.
12,000/-per month higher than the rent of the
suit property from the date of institution of suit
till the delivery of possession.(Para 4 to 26)

The revision is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases Cited:-

## Text

6 All. Smt. Anju Srivastav Vs. Sri Saurabh Birla & Anr.
45
assessee firm could discharge its onus by
proving three things: (i) identity of the
creditor;
(ii)
creditworthiness
of
the
creditor;
and
(iii)
genuineness
of
transaction in question. Once the assessee
proves all the three things its onus is
discharged. It has also been consistently
held that the assessee only needs to prove
the source of credit entries and he is not
required to prove the source of the source
or the creditors' credit.

31. In a case where the integrity of the
creditors is established and the entries are
shown to be not fictitious, the burden would
shift on the Revenue.

32. In the case at hand, the partners have
shown the agricultural income in their personal
returns of the past years which had been
accepted by the department as such. The
partners are all identifiable and separately
assessed to tax. The source of investment
having been explained, in the event the
Assessing Officer was not satisfied the addition
could have been considered in the hands of the
partners and not in the hands of the firm. The
burden of proving the source of the credits
having been sufficiently explained the addition
could not have been made in the hands of the
firm in the facts of the present case.

33. In view of the aforementioned facts
and circumstances the questions of law are
answered in favour of the assessee and against
the Revenue.

34. The appeal stands, accordingly,
allowed.
----------

(2020)06ILR A45
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.02.2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

S.C.C. Revision No. 23 of 2020

Smt. Anju Srivastav ...Revisionist
Versus
Sri Saurabh Birla & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Virendra Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Utkarsh Birla

A.
Civil
Law
-
Code
of
Civil
Procedure,1908-Section
115
-
The
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act,1887-
Section 25 - The Transfer of Property Act,
1882 -Section 106-ejectment and arrears of
rent-notice served upon the applicant but failed
to comply with the same-once the notice
terminating the tenancy meets the requirement
of section 106 of Act,1882 and where the suit
property is out of the purview of U.P. Act No. 13
of 1972, the issue of default in payment of rent
is immaterial-the applicant used the property
without paying rent- the trial court rightly
awarded the damages at the rate of Rs.
12,000/-per month higher than the rent of the
suit property from the date of institution of suit
till the delivery of possession.(Para 4 to 26)

The revision is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases Cited:-

1. Smt. Sunita Gupta Vs Prabhat Chandra
Tandon (2010) 2 ARC 236,

2. Smt. Prakash Rani @ Prakashwati Vs VIth
A.D.J., Bulandshahr & ors. (2006) 2 ARC 296

3. Waqf Allal Aulad/Waqf Alkhair Allahtala, Dr.
Ziaul Haq Vs Ist A.D.J., Bijnor & anr. (2008) 3
ARC 428

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.)

1. It is informed by Sri Atul Dayal,
learned Senior Counsel for the respondents
46 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that respondent no.2 has expired on
02.02.2020, however, he submits that
respondent no.1 is the son and legal heir of
Nitish Kumar Birla, respondent no.2 and he
is already impleaded in present revision as
respondent no.1, therefore, no substitution
of respondent no.2 is required and the
Court may proceed with the matter. In view
of the statement of Sri Atul Dayal, learned
Senior Counsel, the Court proceeds to hear
the present revision with the consent of
counsel of both the parties.

Order on SCC Revision

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revision-applicant and Sri Atul Dayal
assisted by Sri Ayush Khanna ,advocate.

2. The respondents/plaintiff instituted
SCC Suit No.8 of 2018 (Sri Saurabh
Birlaand
&
Others
Vs.
Smt.
Anju
Srivastava) contending inter alia that
respondent no.1 (Saurabh Birla) is the
owner of Flat No.32B/T, Third Floor,
Dhakre Enclave Dhaulpur House, M.G.
Road, Agra. The respondent no.2 (Nitish
Kumar Birla) was managing the aforesaid
flat on behalf of respondent no.1 as
caretaker. The respondent no.2 let out half
portion of the above flat towards norther
side (hereinafter referred to as 'suit
property')
to
the
revision-applicant
(hereinafter referred as 'applicant') at
Rs.6500/- per month for 11 months
commencing
from
01.07.2014
to
31.05.2015. The tenancy was, thereafter,
extended for a further period of 11 months
commencing
from
01.06.2015
to
31.04.2016 at the agreed rent of Rs.7200/-
per month between the parties. After
31.04.2016, the tenancy was allowed to
continue further w.e.f. 01.05.2016 to
31.03.2017 at the agreed rent of Rs.8000/-
per month. The applicant was also liable to
pay other taxes, electricity charges and
society charges. The applicant had paid rent
at Rs.8000/- per month upto May, 2016.
However,
the
rent
from
01.06.2016
onwards was not paid by the applicant.

3. The respondents asked the
applicant to pay arrears of rent and taxes,
but she on one pretext or the other avoided
the payment of rent. However, the applicant
made payment of Rs.35,000/- through
cheque in March, 2017. Thus, rent of
Rs.1,01,000/-
from
01.06.2016
upto
31.10.2017 was due after adjustment of
Rs.35,000/- paid by the applicant in March,
2017 besides the taxes and other charges on
the suit property.

4. The respondents in the aforesaid
circumstances
served
a
notice
dated
27.11.2017 through Sri Navin Kumar
Gupta, Advocate by speed post/A.D. to the
applicant terminating the tenancy of the
applicant. The respondent by the said
notice asked the applicant to vacate the suit
property and pay entire arrears of rent and
taxes till the delivery of actual physical
possession of the suit property to the
respondents. The aforesaid notice was duly
served upon the applicant, but she failed to
comply with the same. As the rent of the
suit
property
was
above
Rs.2,000/-,
therefore, according to the respondents, the
suit property was exempted from U.P. Act
No.13 of 1972. In the aforesaid backdrop,
respondents prayed for a decree of
ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent
and mesne profits together with 18%
interest.

5. The record of the case reveals that
the suit was instituted on 30.01.2018 and
notice was issued to the applicant. She filed
vakalatnama on 08.03.2018 and obtained
copy of plaint on 16.04.2018. Thereafter,
6 All. Smt. Anju Srivastav Vs. Sri Saurabh Birla & Anr.
47
she did not appear on the date fixed in the
suit
on
20.04.2018,
04.05.2018,
11.05.2018, 18.05.2018, 23.07.2018 and
06.08.2018 nor filed the written statement.

6. The Judge Small Causes Court
No.1, Agra, (hereinafter referred to as 'trial
court')
on
06.08.2018
granted
last
opportunity to the applicant to file written
statement,
despite
that
the
applicant
continued to remain absent on 29.08.2018
and 11.09.2018 which were the date fixed
in the aforesaid suit. The trial court passed
an order on 11.09.2018 to proceed exparte
in the suit. The applicant, thereafter, did not
appear before the trail court on the date
fixed in the suit on 25.09.2018, 16.10.2018,
19.11.2018,
10.12.2018,
19.12.2018,
16.01.2019 and 20.02.2019.

7. The applicant filed an application
19Ga on 26.02.2019 praying for setting
aside the order dated 11.09.2018 by which
trial court directed the suit to proceed
exparte. After filing application 19Ga, the
applicant
again
did
not
appear
on
20.04.2019, 08.05.2019 and 03.07.2019
before the trial court. As the applicant did
not appear on several dates fixed in the suit
after the filing of application 19Ga,
therefore, the trial court by order dated
03.07.2019 dismissed the application 19Ga.

8. The Revision-applicant, thereafter,
filed an application 22Ga for setting aside
the order dated 03.07.2019 which was
rejected by the trial court by order dated
02.09.2019 with liberty to the applicant to
remain present on the date fixed in the suit
and to cross examine the plaintiff's
witnesses and also to argue the matter.

9. It appears that the applicant after about
one month and 19 days from the date of order
dated 02.09.2019 appeared before the court
below and filed an application on 21.10.2019
for adjournment of the suit on the ground that
she had filed a revision against the order dated
02.09.2019 rejecting application 22Ga and
order dated 03.07.2019 rejecting application
19Ga.

10. On the application of the applicant,
the suit was adjourned to 31.10.2019 for
exparte hearing. The applicant did not appear
before the court below to argue the matter nor
filed any application to bring on record that she
has preferred revision before the High Court
against the order dated 03.07.2019 and
02.09.2019. The court below, accordingly,
proceeded ex-parte and decreed the Suit on
05.11.2019. The judgment and decree dated
05.11.2019 is impugned in the present revision.

11. Challenging the ex-parte judgement
and order dated 05.11.2019, the only contention
advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is
that the applicant has paid the agreed rent at the
rate of Rs.6500/- per month, hence, there was
no default in payment of rent. He further
submits that there was no agreement between
the parties for enhancement of rent periodically,
therefore, the basis of the notice terminating the
tenancy given by respondents that the rent of
the suit property was Rs.8,000/- per month with
effect from 01.05.2016 and the applicant had
defaulted in payment of rent is wrong and
incorrect. Thus, the submission is that the trial
court has erred in decreeing the suit.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents submits that it is not in dispute
that provision of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 is
not applicable over the suit property and
the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer
of Property Act, 1882 was served upon the
applicant,
perusal
of
which
clearly
elucidates the intention of the lessor/owner
of the suit property to terminate the
tenancy, therefore, the tenant is liable for
48 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
eviction even if there is no default in
payment of rent. Thus, the submission is
that once the notice terminating the tenancy
meets the requirement of Section 106 of
Act, 1882, the issue of default in payment
of rent is not materiel. Accordingly, he
submits that the trail court has not
committed any illegality or jurisdiction
error in decreeing the suit. In support of the
aforesaid submissions, he has placed
reliance upon the judgements of this Court
in the case of Sunita Gupta (Smt.) Vs.
Prabhat Chandra Tandon 2010 (2) ARC
236, (Smt.) Prakash Rani @ Prakashwati
Vs.
VIth Additional
District
Judge,
Bulandshahr and Others 2006 (2) ARC
296 & Waqf Allal Aulad/Waqf Alkhair
Allahtala, Dr. Ziaul Haq Vs. Ist ADJ,
Bijnor and Another 2008 (3) ARC 428.

13. He further submits that the
respondents have proved their case by
leading cogent evidence that the notice
terminating the tenancy was valid and in
the absence of any evidence filed by the
applicant rebutting the evidence of the
respondent,
the
trial
court
has
not
committed any illegality or jurisdictional
error in decreeing the suit. He further
submits that the finding of the trial court
that the respondents have proved their case
is based upon proper evidence on record,
and thus, being a finding of fact is not
liable to be interfered with by this Court in
exercise of its revision jurisdiction.

14. I have considered the rival
submissions of the parties and perused the
record.

15.
In
the present
case,
the
respondents/landlord had given a notice
dated 27.11.2017 through their counsel Sri
Navin Kumar Gupta by speed post/A.D.
which was duly served upon the applicant.
The notice as well as service of notice upon
the
applicant
was
duly
proved
by
respondents/landlord by filing affidavit of
respondent no.2, Nitish Kumar Birla. The
applicant has not denied the service of
notice terminating the tenancy. It would be
apposite to refer few paragraphs of the
notice dated 27.11.2017 which clearly
shows
the
intention
of
the
respondents/landlord
to
terminate
the
tenancy of the applicant:-

"...

7. That you have paid rent @
8,000/- per month only for the month of
May, 2016. Rent became due from you
in respect of the property in question
for the period 01.06.2016 onwards. My
client
Shri
Nisheeth
Kumar
Birla
repeatedly asked you to clear the
arrears of rent and also to pay the taxes
as claimed above but you dilly-dallied
the matter and paid Rs.35,000/- only
through Cheque in March 2017.

8. That for the period 1.6.2016
upto 30.6.2017 Rs.1,04,4000/- became
due against you towards arrears of rent
besides
taxes.
After
adjusting
Rs.35,000/- paid by you in March 2017,
Rs.69,000/- towards arrears of rent
besides taxes still remain due against
you in respect of the property in
question which you have not paid
despite repeated reminders of my client
Shri Nisheeth Kumar Birla. Rent and
taxes from 01.07.2017 till date have
also became due against you.

9. That you are also not paying
electricity dues in respect of the electric
connection which is in your use and
electricity dues for several months have
accumulated against you.

10.
That
in
the
above
circumstances my client does not want
to continue your tenancy in respect of
6 All. Smt. Anju Srivastav Vs. Sri Saurabh Birla & Anr.
49
the property in question and the same is
hereby terminated. Property in question
is exempt from U.P. Act 13, 1972.

11.
That
at
present
the
property in question can easily be let
out at the rent of Rs.12,000/- per month.

12. That earlier my client sent
a similar notice dt. 5.7.2017 to you but
you managed to return the same in
collusion with the postman.

I, therefore, call upon you to
vacate the property in question, delivering
its actual vacant possession to my client
Shri Nisheeth Kumar Birla just after the
expiry of 30 days from the service of this
notice upon you clearing within the
aforesaid period the entire arrears of rent
& taxes as claimed above. In case of noncompliance of this notice, my clients shall
be constrained to file a suit against you for
your ejectment from the property in
question and for recovering from you the
entire arrears of rent & taxes together with
interest thereon @ 18% per annum. In case
such suit is filed, you shall also be liable to
pay mesne profits @ Rs.12,000/- per month
and you shall also be saddled with all the
costs & consequences of such suit."

16. It is admitted on record that rent
of the suit property is more than Rs.2,000/-
and, therefore, provisions of U.P. Act No.13
of 1972 are not applicable.

17. This Court in the cases relied
upon by the learned counsel for the
respondents has held that where the suit
property is out of the purview of U.P. Act
No.13 of 1972 and a valid notice showing
the intention of the landlord to terminate
the tenancy has been served upon the
tenant, the issue of default in payment of
rent is immaterial and the tenant is liable
for eviction. Paragraphs 5 & 6 of the
judgement of Sunita Gupta (Smt.) (supra)
are extracted hereinbelow:-

"5. Heard the learned counsel for
the parties and perused record. It is not in
dispute that there is a relationship of
landlord and tenant between the parties
and the monthly rate of rent in respect of
the disputed shop is Rs.2500/-. This being
so, the provisions of the U.P. Act No.13 of
1972 are not applicable. The learned
counsel for the applicant could not point
out any legal infirmity in the notice given
under Section 106 of the Transfer of
Property Act.

6. The learned counsel for the
applicant could submit only this much that
the property in dispute was sublet due to
financial crisis and now, the sub tenant has
been removed from the property in dispute.
Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the
provisions of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972
are not applicable and there is no illegality
in the notice terminating the tenancy, I do
not find any good ground to interfere in the
revision. No other point was pressed. The
revision lacks merit and it is dismissed
summarily".

18. This Court in the case of (Smt.)
Prakash Rani @ Prakashwati (supra) held
that if provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972
is not applicable over the suit property, then
even if there is no default in payment of
rent , the suit for eviction is liable to be
decreed provided a valid notice terminating
the tenancy has been served upon the
tenant. Paragraph 5 of the judgement is
extracted hereinbelow:-

"5. However, as far as the judgment
of the Revisional Court in tenant's revision
(S.C.C. Revision No. 19 of 1990) is concerned, I
find that the said judgment is clearly erroneous
in law. The Revisional Court in Para 10 of its
50 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgment clearly held that there was absolutely
no dispute that provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of
1972 were not applicable on the building in
dispute. However, the Revisional Court has
held that as at the time of giving notice tenant
was not defaulter, hence his tenancy could
not be terminated. This view is clearly
erroneous in law. If U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is
not applicable, then suit for eviction is liable
to be decreed after termination of tenancy,
without there being any default in payment of
rent or any other ground. For termination of
tenancy it is not at all necessary that the
tenant must be defaulter. Month to month
tenancy is terminable by one month's notice
under section 106 of the Transfer of Property
Act. It has not been found by the Revisional
Court that there was any agreement in
between the parties against termination of
tenancy by one month's notice."

19. Paragraph 6 of the judgement in
the case of Waqf Allal Aulad/Waqf Alkhair
Allahtala, Dr. Ziaul Haq (supra) is also
relevant in the context of the present case,
and thus, is extracted hereinbelow:-

"6. If Rent Control Act does not
apply, then tenant is liable to eviction
simply after termination of tenancy. Default
or no default is wholly immaterial.
Revisional court itself held that building in
dispute belonged to Waqf-allal-aulad and
was beyond the purview of U.P. Act No.13
of 1972. Thereafter, there was absolutely no
sense in holding that the notice of
termination of tenancy was invalid on the
ground that tenant was not defaulter when
notice was given. The view taken by the
lower revisional court is quite strange and
utterly untenable. Even if Rent Control Act
applies and in the notice wrong period of
default and wrong rate of rent is mentioned,
still notice does not become invalid vide
Full Bench authority of Gokaran Singh Vs.
Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Hardoi and others, 2000 (1) ARC 653."

20. In the present case, learned
counsel for the applicant has failed to point
out any illegality in the notice dated
27.11.2017 terminating the tenancy. A
perusal of the notice dated 27.11.2017
makes it amply clear that there was clear
intendment of the respondents/ landlord to
terminate the tenancy of the applicant. In
this view of the fact and in the light of the
ratio laid down by this Court in aforesaid
judgements, this Court finds that the trial
court has not committed any jurisdictional
error in decreeing the suit.

21. The contention of the counsel for the
applicant that there was no rent due is also
belied from the averments made in paragraph
15 of the affidavit of the applicant in the present
revision wherein she has stated that the rent is
due from April, 2007 onwards. Paragraph 15 of
the affidavit is extracted hereinbelow:-

"15. That, the rent from April, 2017
to onwards at the rate of Rs.6500/- per month is
only due."

22. Further, it is the case of the respondent
that the suit property was let out for eleven
months commencing from 01.07.2014 to
31.05.2015. The tenancy was ,thereafter,
extended for a further period of 11 months
commencing from 01.06.2015 to 31.04.2016 at
the agreed rent of Rs.7200/- per month between
the parties. After 31.04.2016, the tenancy was
allowed to continue further w.e.f. 01.05.2016 to
31.03.2017 at the agreed rent of Rs.8000/- per
month. The fact that the rent has been
periodically enhanced and the rent of the suit
property was Rs.8,000/- from 01.05.2016 was
proved by the respondent by filing the affidavit
of Nishit Kumar Birla. The applicant did not
rebut the affidavit of Nitish Kumar Birla nor
cross examined him despite permitted by the
6 All. Smt. Anju Srivastav Vs. Sri Saurabh Birla & Anr.
51
trail court to cross examine the witnesses,
hence, this court finds that the trail court has not
committed
any
illegality
in
awarding
Rs.1,25,000/- towards arrear of rent treating the
rent of the suit property to be Rs.8,000/- per
month from 01.05.2016.

23. It is also worth to notice that the
applicant had adopted all dilatory tactics to
delay the disposal of the suit inasmuch as she
did not appear on the several dates fixed by the
trial court in the suit nor she did chose to file
written statement despite several opportunities
granted by the trial court.

24. The insincere approach of the
applicant in contesting the suit is also
evident from the fact that the applicant filed
an application 19Ga under Order 9 Rule 7
of C.P.C. to recall the order of the trail
court to proceed ex-parte, but she did not
appear on several dates to argue the said
application which led the trial court to pass
the order dated 03.07.2019 dismissing the
application 19Ga in her absence. The
applicant, thereafter, filed application 22Ga
on 14.08.2019 to recall the order dated
03.07.2019 which was dismissed by the
trial court granting liberty to the applicant
to participate in the hearing of the case, yet
the applicant sought adjournment of the
case on 31.10.2019 on the false ground that
she had filed revision against the order
dated 02.09.2019 before the High Court,
whereas
the
revision
was
filed
on
19.12.2019
with
delay
condonation
application. From the aforesaid fact, it is
manifest that the conduct of the applicant in
contesting the suit was mischievous which
disentitles her for any relief from this Court
in exercise of its revision jurisdiction.

25. The applicant has used the suit
property without paying rent, therefore, the
trial
court
has
not
committed
any
jurisdictional error in awarding damages at
the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month higher
than the rent of the suit property from the
date of institution of the suit till the
delivery of possession of the suit property
to the respondent. In this regard, it would
be apt to refer paragraphs 10 and 11 of the
judgement of this Court in the case of Food
Corporation of India and Another Vs. M/s
Durga Shakti Enterprises 1996 (1) ARC
153
which
are
being
extracted
hereinbelow:-

"10. The last contention has been
that the mesne profits at the rate of
Rs.35,000 per month could not be granted
by the Court below. It was contended that
mesne profits exceeding the agreed rate of
rent cannot be granted. In support of this
contention the case of Mahesh Lalwani v.
Sardar Uttam Singh, 1989 LCD 1, was
referred. In this case it was held that the
damages for occupation of premises under
tenancy should be equal to such amount
which the plaintiff was realising as rent of
the premises from the defendant. No excess
amount could be awarded by way of
penalty, even though the premises is not
governed
by
the Rent
Control Act.
However, from the side of the opposite
party, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court reported in AIR 1977 SC 2270,
Shyam Charan v. Sheoji Bhai, was cited
and it was argued that in view of this
decision damages can be awarded at
enhanced rate. In view of this decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Single Judge
decision of this Court cannot be followed
by another Single Judge of the same Court.
It
is,
therefore,
clear
from
the
pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that the damages can be awarded at
the enhanced rate.

11. In this case mesne profits
were claimed at the rate of Rs.6000 per
52 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
month as against the agreed rate of
Rs.1600. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
confirmed the award of mesne profits at the
rate of Rs.4000 per month."

26. For the reasons given above, this
Court finds that trial court has not
committed any illegality or jurisdictional
error in decreeing the suit. Consequently,
the revision lacks merit and is, accordingly,
dismissed with no order as to cost.
----------
(2020)06ILR A52
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

S.C.C. Revision No. 33 of 2020

Smt. Ranjana Mishra ...Revisionist
Versus
Kamal Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Sri Rishikesh Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
-----

A.
Civil
Law
-
Code
of
Civil
Procedure,1908- Section 115-Order XV
Rule 5- suit for decree of eviction and arrears
of rent-Strike off defence of tenant on failure to
deposit the admitted rent-the issue as to
whether the tenant was in use or not in the
building in question is the subject-matter of
evidence-the said submission is not sustainablethe requirement of Order XV Rule 5 is
mandatory
requirement-thus
court
below
committed
no
illegality
in
allowing
the
application-(Para 3 to 14)

B. The Order XV Rule 5 of CPC provides that in
any suit by a lessor for the eviction of a lessee
after determination of his lease and for the
recovery from him of rent or compensation for
use and occupation, the defendant/lessee shall,
at or before the first hearing of the suit, deposit
the entire amount admitted by him to be due
together with interest thereon at the rate of
nine percent per annum.(Para 12, 13)

C. The purpose of enacting the provision of Order XV
Rule 5 was not to give lever to the landlord to get the
tenant punished for insignificant lapses, but to ensure
that the dues of the landlord are properly secured
and he can get his rent regularly even though the
litigation may continue.

Landlord
filed
a
suit
against
the
applicant/revisionist on the ground that the
applicant has not paid rent. Notice was given for
terminating the tenancy. The applicant denied
the same and stated that the applicant is not in
use and occupation of the residential building as
the landlord has put a lock on the staircase of
the building.(Para 3, 4, 5)

The revision is dismissed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionapplicant.

2. By means of present revision, the
revision-applicant has assailed the order
dated 03.01.2019 passed by III Additional
District Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.),
Agra in SCC Case No.66 of 2015 (Kamal
Kumar and others Vs. Smt. Ranjana
Mishra) whereby the application of the
respondents-landlord under Order XV Rule
5 CPC has been allowed and the defence of
the revision-applicant has been struck off.

3. The respondents-landlord has filed
SCC Case No.66 of 2015 (Kamal Kumar
and others Vs. Smt. Ranjana Mishra)
against the revision-applicant for eviction
and arrears of rent on the ground that the
revision-applicant
is
a
tenant
of
a
residential building at the rate of Rs.2200/-
per month. The revision-applicant has not
paid rent from 01.01.2010 and has