JUDGMENT : K.C.Agrawal 1. Suit No. 218 of 1981 was filed by Jaswant Prasad and others against the Premier Motors Private Limited and others for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages in respect of house no. 54, Civil Lines, Bareilly. 2. The plaintiffs claimed that by a registered deed dated 16-10-1959/ 19-10-1959, the defendants 1 and 2 took on lease the land measuring 17000 sq. feet forming part of plot no. 54, Civil Lines, Bareilly on a monthly rent of Rs.200/-. The lease was initially granted for a period of ten years. In pursuance of the renewal clause, the defendants 1 and 2 exercised the option to get the lease renewed for another period of ten years beginning from 1-10-1969 to 30th September, 1979. The rent was enhanced to Rs.650/- per month. Extended period of lease expired on 30th September, 1979, and tenancy of the defendants came to an end by efflux of time on 30th September, 1979. The defendants were then requested to vacate the land and to hand over possession to the plaintiffs, but they did not pay any heed, hence the suit was for possession from the land. The plaintiffs claimed that provisions of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 did not apply as what was let out was a land. The defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit by means of a written statement and denied that Rs.650/- was the rent per month. According to them, lump sum payment of Rs.650/- was being made to the plaintiffs for each month for being adjusted towards future liability and that the defendants have not committed default According to them, the agreed rent was Rs. 250/- per month, and as such, the claim of the plaintiffs that the defendants were defaulter was not correct. The defendants further alleged that their tenancy had not come to an end and was still subsisting. The defendants since did not comply with Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure by depositing the rent required under the same, the plaintiffs filed an application for striking off the defence/written statement on 4-4-1983. The application was contested by the defendants by means of an objection. The Civil Judge held that as Order XV Rule 5 of the Code had not complied with the written statement was liable to be struck off. 3. The application was contested by the defendants by means of an objection. The Civil Judge held that as Order XV Rule 5 of the Code had not complied with the written statement was liable to be struck off. 3. Against the said order, this revision was filed. Being of the opinion that the Full Bench case, Smt. Chandra Rani v. Vikram Singh, 1979 AWC 47 holding U.P. Act 57 of 1976 was required to be reconsidered, therefore, the learned Single Judge before whom the revision came up for hearing, referred the two following questions for decision by the larger bench ; 1. Whether in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ganpat Giri (Supra), the provisions of Order XV Rule 5, CPC, stood repealed by virtue of the provisions of Section 97 (1) of the Central Act No. 104 of 1976 ? 2. Whether the Central amendments having come into force with effect from 1-2-77 repealed the provisions of Order XV Rule 5, CPC, introduced by the U. P. Act No. 57 of 1976 ? 4. The Full Bench answered both the questions in the negative-(See 1988 AWC 1224 -Editor). As a consequence of the same, Order XV Rule 5, as inserted by U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976 was found to be valid. The Bench held that under sub-section (1) of Sec. 97, the local amendments made by the Legislature and by the State Government could be invalid only when it was inconsistent with the provisions of the Code, as amended by the Amending Act, stood repealed. As there was no inconsistency in amended Order XV Rule 5 with Central Act 104 of 1976, Order XV Rule 5 was valid. Consequent upon the answer by the Full Bench, this case has been listed before me today. 5. The submission of the applicants' counsel was that as the lease had not been terminated, which was a condition precedent for applying Order XV Rule 5, the court below held erroneously that the non-deposit of rent or damages, as required by it, could result in striking off the defence. 6. One of the questions before the Full Bench in Gurudas Biswas v. Charu Panna Seal, AIR 1977 Cal. 6. One of the questions before the Full Bench in Gurudas Biswas v. Charu Panna Seal, AIR 1977 Cal. 110 , was whether, in a suit for ejectment where the defence has been struck out, the defendant could take the defence of non-existence or invalidity of a notice This question was answered in the affirmative, endorsing the conclusion reached in a number of earlier decisions of the Calcutta High Court. In Modula India v. Kamakhya Singh Deo, 1988 (4) 214, Judgments Today, the Supreme Court considered this aspect of the matter in detail. It has been held in this case : " But it does not necessarily follow that, once the defence is struck off, the defendant is completely helpless and that his conduct of the case should be so crippled as to render a decree against him inevitable. To hold so would be to impose on him a punishment disproportionate to his default. The observations made by this Court, while discussing the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the Original Side rules of the Calcutta High Court which deal with somewhat analogous situations, cannot be lightly brushed aside. Those decisions have enunciated a general equitable principle. We are also of the same view that provisions of this type should be construed strictly and that the disabilities of a person in default should be limited to the minimum extent consistent with the requirements of justice. This should be all the more so in the context of a tenancy legislation, the main object of which is to confer protection on tenants against eviction by the landlord, unless certain statutory conditions are fulfilled. The provisions should not be given any wider operation than could have been strictly intended by the legislature." Consequently, the full effect of striking out of the defence would be that he would be entitled to challenge the validity of the notice made in the plaint itself. He would not be allowed to lead evidence of his own nor his cross-examination would be permissible to travel with pointing out the falsity or the weakness of the plaintiff's case 7. For what I have said above, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs. Stay order is vacated. Revision dismissed.