Satish Chandra, C.J.
1. This revision is directed against an order dismissing an application moved by the plaintiff-landlord for striking off the defence of the lessees.
2. It appears that a suit was filed, inter alia, on the ground of illegal Sub-leting by the lessee-defendants. The alleged Sub-lessees were also impleaded as parties. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff-applicant, deposits of money were made by the subtenants in the court in this suit. The deposits were admittedly made to the credit of the plaintiff-applicant. They were made in order to carry out the obligation imposed upon the defendants by Order XV. Rule 5 C. P. C. to keep on depositing the rent as and when it falls due. It is not disputed that the amount due was duly deposited. The submission on behalf of the plaintiff-applicant is that the amount was in fact deposited by some of the alleged Sub-lessees and not by the lessees themselves and, therefore, the lessees will be deemed to have violated the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5 C. P. C., and hence their defence is liable to he struck off.
3. Order XV, Rule 5 C. P. C. was added to the Code in order to impel the defendants 'to deposit the rent as and when it falls due on pain of having their defence struck off. The object of this Act was to enable the plaintiff to have the rent paid to him or deposited to his credit as and when it falls due. So long as the object of the statutory provision is achieved, undue technicality should not be allowed to prevail to shut out the defence of the tenants from being considered by the court.
Order XV, Rule 5 C. P. C. provides as follows:
'(1) In any suit by a lessor for the eviction of a lessee after the determination of his lease and for the recovery from him of rent or compensation for use and occupation, the defendant shall, at or before the first hearing of the suit, deposit the entire amount.....'
Here the liability to make the deposit is on the defendants to the suit. In the present case, the plaintiff impleaded not only the tenant but also certain other persons on the allegation that they have been illegally engrafted on the accommodation and they allege to be Sub-tenants of the tenant. These persona were nonetheless impleaded in the suit as defendants. They were the existing defendants to the suit, Order XV,Rule 5 C. P. C. does not specifically exclude any person who has been impleaded as a defendant from complying with its provision.
4. If in the present case the deposits were in fact made not by the defendant who was the tenant, but by the defendants who were impleaded alleging them as trespassers or Sub-tenants. nonetheless they bearing the capacity of defendants to the suit, were entitled to comply with Order XV, Rule 5 C. P. C. by making the requisite deposits. Even though they may themselves be under no personal liability to make the deposits and even though it may be said, as was argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, that the alleged subtenants' defence cannot in any event be struck off, as pointed out in Hari Prakash v. Raja Ram, 1979 (UP) RCC 232 : (1979 All LJ 582). To say that the defence of a Sub-tenant cannot be struck off because he is under no liability to comply with Order XV, Rule 5 C. P. C., is one thing. It is quite another to say that these Sub-lessees who were being impleaded by the plaintiff as defendants to the suit are debarred from making the deposits in order to save the defence of the main tenant from being struck off. Order XV, Rule 5 C. P. C. does not in terms confine the act of making the deposit to the tenant who is a defendant. Of course, the plaintiff alone will be entitled to the deposits, not the persons who deposited the money.
5. In view of all this, I am not satisfied that the court below has committed any jurisdictional error in refusing to strike off the defence of the tenant-defendants.
6. The revision fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.