Applicability Of Order XV Rule 5 CPC

. The Supreme Court in the case of Atma Ram v. Shakuntala Rani on 30 August, 2005 had the occasion to examine whether the tenant defaulted in payment of rent if he had not paid or tendered or deposited the rent in the manner required by law and whether the deposit of rent under some other Act could be construed to be a valid deposit. The tenant had sent a money-order remitting the rent but the landlord refused to accept it and, therefore, the tenant deposited the rent for the period from 1st February, 1992 to 31st January, 1995 in January, 1995 under the provisions of the Punjab Relief Indebtedness Act, 1934 (called the ''Punjab Act'). The landlord, however, sent a notice dated 16th May, 1996 to the tenant to pay arrears of rent. The tenant on 20th July, 1996 deposited the rent for the period February, 1995 to 12th July, 1996 under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1961 (called the ''Delhi Act'). The arrears of rent from 1st February, 1992 to 31st January, 1995 was not included since the tenant had deposited the same under the Punjab Act. Section 27 of the Delhi Act provides that where the landlord does not accept any rent tendered by the tenant, the tenant may deposit such rent with the Rent Controller in the manner provided for in that Section. The landlord then filed an application for eviction of the tenant under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Act. The Supreme Court after considering a number of its earlier decisions in Kuldeep Singh v. Ganpat Lal , Jagat Prasad v. Distt. Judge, Kanpur 1995 Supp (1) SCC 318, M. Bhaskar v. J. Venkatarama Naidu , Ram Bagas Taparia v. Ram Chandra Pal , and E. Palanisamy v. Palanisamy observed:

It will thus appear that this Court has consistently taken the view that in the Rent Control legislations if the tenant wishes to take advantage of the beneficial provisions of the Act, he must strictly comply with the requirements of the Act. If any condition precedent is to be fulfilled before the benefit can be claimed, he must strictly comply with that condition. If he fails to do so he cannot take advantage of the benefit conferred by such a provision.

...

The Act, therefore, prescribes what must be done by a tenant if the landlord does not accept the rent tendered by him within the specified period. He is required to deposit the rent in the Court of the Rent Controller giving the necessary particulars as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 27. There is, therefore, a specific provision which provides the procedure to be followed in such a contingency. In view of the specific provisions of the Act it would not be open to a tenant to resort to any other procedure. If the rent is not deposited in the Court of the Rent Controller as required by Section 27 of the Act, and is deposited somewhere else, it shall not be treated as a valid payment/tender of the arrears of rent within the meaning of the Act and consequently the tenant must be held to be in default.

Allahabad High Court, Raman Lal vs Shri Janki Vallabh Ji Maharaj ... on 29 April, 2008

10. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Atma Ram emphasizes that if the tenant wishes to take advantage of the beneficial provisions of the Rent Control Act, he must strictly comply with the requirements and if any condition precedent is required to be fulfilled before the benefit can be claimed, the tenant must strictly comply with that condition failing which he cannot take advantage of the benefit conferred by such a provision. It has further been emphasised that the rent must be deposited in the Court where it is required to be deposited under the Act and if it is deposited somewhere else, it shall not be treated as a valid payment/tender of the rent and consequently the tenant must be held to be in default.

11.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.

It, therefore, follows that the amount due to be deposited by the tenant throughout the continuation of the suit has to be deposited in the Court where the suit is filed otherwise the Court may strike off the defence of the tenant since the deposits made by the tenant under Section 30 (1) of the Act after the first hearing of the suit cannot be taken into consideration.

12. In Basant Kumar Chauhan v. VIIth A.D.J. 1994 (1) ARC 107 after analyzing the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 CPC, this Court observed:

It is, therefore, obvious that the provisions contained in Order XV, Rule 5, read with Explanation II clearly stipulate that any amount deposited in any Court under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 could be taken notice of by the Court where the suit was pending only so far as the deposits required to be made at or before the first hearing of the suit were concerned. The other deposits required to be made throughout the continuation of the suit are the regular deposits of the monthly amount due within a week from the date of its accrual.... Considering the Explanation III to Order XV, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code it is clear that for finding out the ''monthly amount due' the deposits made in any Court under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not to be taken into account.... Obviously, therefore, once in any suit by a lessor for the eviction of a lessee after the determination of his lease, the tenant defendant comes to know of the pendency of the suit and puts in appearance therein, a statutory obligation stands cast upon him to regularly deposit the monthly amount due as envisaged under Explanation III to Order XV, Rule 5(1) of the Civil Procedure Code in the suit regularly throughout its continuation within a week from the date of its accrual in order to save his defence from being struck-off.

13. In Ram Kumar Singh v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad 2003 (1) ARC 294 after placing reliance on the decisions rendered in Basant Kumar Chauhan and Sayeed Hasan Jafar alias Shakil Ahmad v. Rurabal Haq and Ors. 1995 (2) ARC 341, this Court observed as follows:

In view of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, it is evident that the deposit of the monthly rent/compensation by the petitioner (defendant) under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 during the continuance of the said S.C.C. Suit No. 26 of 1977 were illegal, and the same could not be said to be made in compliance with the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Once the "first hearing" in the said S.C.C. Suit No. 26 of 1977 arrived, it was no longer open to the petitioner to continue to deposit the monthly rent/compensation under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 in the Court of Munsif, Ghaziabad. The said monthly deposits should have been made in the said S.C.C. Suit No. 26 of 1977 before the respondent No. 2. Thus, the petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of the second part of Order XV Rule 5(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure namely, head (B) above.

14. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the amount deposited under Section 30 of the Act can be taken into consideration while depositing the amount at or before the first date of hearing of the suit but the deposits of the monthly amount thereafter throughout the continuation of the suit must be made in the Court where the suit is filed and the amount, if any, deposited under Section 30 of the Act cannot be deducted.

pge is under construction