JUDGMENT S.U. Khan, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shrimati Seema Agarwal, Learned counsel who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of landlord respondent.
2. All the facts necessary to decide the point involved are conained in the writ petition and its annexdures, hence there is no need for counter affidavit. Learned counsel for landlord respondent also agrees to the suggestion of the Court for final disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage without any counter affidavit.
3. Landlord respondent has filed S.C.C. Suit No. 118 of 1998 against the tenant petitioner which is pending before J.S.C.C. Aligarh. In the suit landlord filed an application for striking off the defence of the tenant. The trial court by order dated 18.97004 struck off the defence of the tenant. The said order was maintained by A.D.J. Court No. 6 Aligarh in S.C.C. Revision No. 84 of 2004, which was dismissed on 9.9.2005. The said orders have been challenged in this writ petition.
4. On 5.10.2005 tenant petitioner was directed to deposit the entire rent due till 31.10.2005 along with Rs. 5.000/- extra by 17.10.2005. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the tenant petitioner stating therein that on 10.10.2005 he has deposited Rs. 28,000/-. In the order of the trial court it is mentioned that rent had not been deposited since 1.1.2004 From 1 1.2004 till 31 10.2005 period comes to 22 months. In the plaint landlord has claimed the rent @ Rs. 1000/- p.m. However in the written statement tenant has pleaded that the rate of rent is only Rs. 500/- per month Aforesaid amount of Rs 28.000/- covers Rs. 22000/- as rent for 22 months from 1.1.2004 till 31 10.2005 @ Rs. 1000/- p.m. (as asked for by the landlord ) along with Rs. 5000/- extra directed to be deposited through order dated 5.10.2005 and an additional; amount of Rs. 1000/- by way Of abundant precaution. Learned counsel for the landlord-respondent states that some more amount was not deposited by the tenant which according to her covered a period of about 12 or 13 months. Even if this allegation is correct it will not make much difference because under Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C. tenant is required to deposit admitted rent while in the instant case tenant has deposited at the rate which is claimed by the landlord.
5. The provision of Order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C. as inserted w.e.f. 1.7.2002 is rather more stringent than the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C. In any case, both the provisions are couched in similar mandatory form The Supreme Court while interpreting Order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C. in its authority reported in Kailash v. Nanku (2005) 1 A.R.C. 861, has held that even after expiry of 90 days from the date of service of summons court has got power to take written statement on record. However, it shall be done on payment of very heavy cost. Similar principle is to be applied in cases covered by Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C. If tenant has made repeated defaults in deposit, then he may be directed to make good the deficiency on payment of very heavy cost. In view of the above, I had directed the tenant petitioner to deposit Rs. 5,000/- extra by order dated 5.10.2005.
6. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Both the impugned orders are set aside on payment of Rs. 5,000/- costs to the plaintiff landlord respondent. Out of the amount of Rs. 28,0.00/-, an amount of Rs. 5.000/- shall at once be paid to the landlord-respondent as costs. Remaining amount may also be paid to the landlord if he is otherwise entitled to receive the same during the pendency of the suit. As the suit is pending since 1998 hence it shall be decided positively within 4 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Absolutely no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to any of the parties.