JUDGMENT M.L. Bhat 1. This is a revision petition filed by the defendant-tenant against the impugned order dated 28-11-1984 by which his defence has been struck out in accordance with Order 15 Rule 5 CPC. 2. It appears that two suits were filed against the revisionist-tenant. The first suit was filed in 1980, which was registered as Suit No. 21 of 1980. That suit was only for arrears of rent. Subsequent suit was filed in 1982, which was registered as Suit No. 2 of 1982. That suit was for eviction of the tenant as also for t he arrears of rent for a different period. The two suits seem to have been consolidated. On 8-12-1982 the plaintiff made an application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC for striking off the defence of the defendant-tenant. However, this application was dismissed on 21-2-1983 by the court because the landlord-plaintiff admitted to have received the entire amount of rent, which was due to him and which was claimed by him in his application dated 8-12-1982. The second application was filed on 19-10-1983. In this application it was stated that the rent from December, 1982 was not deposited in terms of the Order 15 Rule 5 CPC therefore, the defence of the tenant-defendant be struck off. 3. It seems that the defendant has deposited some amount on different dates. The dispute is regarding the amount of Rs. 2070/-. which according to the defendant-tenant is to be adjusted towards the arrears of rent claimed in suit no. 2 of 1982 whereas the plaintiff-landlord contends that amount was accepted by him on account of payment of arrears of rent in Suit No. 21 of 1980. IT is contended that the said amount is not adjustable in Suit No. 2 of 1982 because it was not a deposit made in that suit. This contention was contested by the defendant-tenant, who submitted that this amount is to be taken into consideration for being adjusted in Suit No. 2 of 1982 and if that is done, then the defendant-tenant is not a defaulter and cannot suffer panel consequences of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties in detail. On the factual aspect of the case I do not want to make any comment because that may prejudice one party or the other. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties in detail. On the factual aspect of the case I do not want to make any comment because that may prejudice one party or the other. The only point which was vehemently debated before the Court is about the amount of Rs. 2070/-. Whether or not that amount can be adjusted towards the arrears of rent in suit No. 2 of 1982 is the sole question which is to be decided by this order. The learned counsel for the landlord-plaintiff while arguing the case submitted that in Suit No. 21 of 1980 an attachment order was passed in terms of Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. Thereafter, the amount attached in that suit was got by the court below with the consent of the parties in Court and the landlord accepted that amount as rent and agreed that the amount attached will be adjusted towards the rent but it was not agreed that amount will be adjusted in Suit No. 2 of 1982. Therefore, his contention is that that amount will be payment of arrears of rent in suit No. 21 of 1980 only. In my opinion, this contention has no substance for a few reasons which I give below. 5. In the first place, it is to be noted that two suits were consolidated end were tried together. The order passed in one suit will be binding in the other suit. Therefore, any amount, which was agreed to be adjusted towards the amount of rent will be binding in the other suit also. Secondly, if the amount was attached in terms of Order 38 Rule 5 and which is got in the Court with the consent of the parties, it could not be paid to the landlord in terms of Order 38 Rule 5 because under that order the attached property is to be preserved for the benefit of the party, which ultimately succeeds in the suit and that order proceeds for a different purpose. The attachment order is always conditional. No absolute order can be passed by the any court If an absolute order was passed by the court below it had the power to lift the attachment but it could not disburse the amount in favour of any of the parties under Order 38 Rule 5. The attachment order is always conditional. No absolute order can be passed by the any court If an absolute order was passed by the court below it had the power to lift the attachment but it could not disburse the amount in favour of any of the parties under Order 38 Rule 5. The landlord-plaintiff seems to have agreed before the court below that he will accept the amount towards the rent which is in terms of Order 15 Rule 3 and not in terms of Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. The attached property i.e. Rs. 2070/- seem to have been paid to the landlord and accepted by him under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC and it could not be paid to the landlord-plaintiff under Order 38 Rule 5. The trial court has failed to draw the distinction between the two provisions of the CPC Therefore, it was held that the amount of rent was paid to the landlord in previous suit i.e. Suit No. 21 of 1980 and not in suit No. 2 of 1982. Had the trial court cared to read Order 38 Rule 5 it would have definitely come to the conclusion that under that Order even if a party agrees to accept the amount attached, the court has no power to give him any attached property during the pendency of the suit. Since the amount was treated to be a deposit under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC therefore, it was agreed to be accepted by the landlord-plaintiff towards the rent. 6. The deposit of rent is obligatory only in a suit for eviction under Order 15 Rule 5. In any other suit there is no obligation cast on the tenant to deposit the rent during the pendency of the suit under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC Some other provisions of the Rent Control Act may enjoin upon the tenant to deposit the rent but certainly it will not be CPC which will oblige the tenant to deposit the rent during the pendency of the suit wherein rent alone is claimed. Such an obligation arises only in a suit for eviction. The second suit was definitely for eviction, therefore, the tenant was obliged to deposit the rent. Realising his obligation the tenant-defendant seems to have made an application that the attached property be adjusted towards rent and its payment be made to the landlord-plaintiff. Such an obligation arises only in a suit for eviction. The second suit was definitely for eviction, therefore, the tenant was obliged to deposit the rent. Realising his obligation the tenant-defendant seems to have made an application that the attached property be adjusted towards rent and its payment be made to the landlord-plaintiff. The landlord-plaintiff atonce accepted the offer and agreed to withdraw the amount, which withdrawal could be only under Order 15 Rule 5 without any prejudice to his rights in the suit. Therefore, I am of the view that the amount of Rs. 2070/-is adjustable towards the arrears of rent in suit No. 2 of 1982 and the trial court's finding to the contrary, besides being erroneous, is against the provisions of law. The revision petition for the reasons stated above is allowed. The impugned order dated 28-11-1984 is hereby set aside. The trial court is directed to proceed with the main suit afresh and determine the amount which is payable to the landlord-plaintiff by the tenant month to month or on account of arrears of rent after adjusting Rs. 2070/- in Suit No. 2 of 1982 towards the arrears of rent claimed by the landlord-plaintiff from the defendant-tenant. The tenant is at liberty to make any representation, if he is required to make the one, which shall receive due consideration by the trial court in accordance with law. 7. About the deposit made by the tenant-defendant there is a dispute which dispute needs to be decided by the trial court. In case the trial court on examination of the record or on such enquiry as may be deemed proper by it, finds the defendant-tenant a defaulter in terms of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC the trial court is at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 8. The learned counsel for the parties are directed to cause the presence of their clients before the court below on 20-12-1990. Revision allowed.