JUDGMENT : RAKESH TIWARI, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition filed by the tenant for quashing of the impugned order dated 28.1.2005 passed by the Upper Zila Judge, Court No. 1, Allahabad/respondent No. 3 by which the application No. 19Ga of the petitioner alongwith the affidavit for extension of time to deposit the decretal amount has been rejected. 3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the landlords filed a Suit No. 45 of 1995, for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent, damages and pendente lite against the petitioner. The suit was contested by the petitioner denying the plaint allegations. The Judge Small Causes Court, Allahabad, decreed the suit for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and damages Rs. 4,805 by its judgment and decree dated 13.2.2004. 4. Aggrieved by the Judgment, the petitioner filed Revision No. 156 of 2004, before respondent No. 3, alongwith an application for interim orders. 5. By order dated 8.10.2004, Upper Zila Judge, Court No. 1, Allahabad-respondent No. 3, stayed the execution of the decree for ejectment subject to condition of deposit of the entire decretal amount within a period of one month by the petitioner. He also directed that any amount already deposited by the petitioner will be adjusted in the decretal amount. 6. The petitioner did not make any deposit in compliance of the conditional order of stay dated 8.10.2004 passed by the Court within the stipulated time. He rather moved an application supported by an affidavit dated 19.1.2005 for extension of time to deposit the decretal amount as directed by the Court on the ground that his daughter was seriously ill and was operated upon and thereafter his brother fell ill as such he had spent huge amount in their treatment and could not comply with the conditional order of the Court. 7. Objections have been filed by the landlord-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the aforesaid application on the ground that since the order had not been complied with by the petitioner, the interim order granted by the Court had become inoperative automatically as such application for grant of extension of time for depositing the amount was mala-fide moved and was not justified. 8. 1 and 2 to the aforesaid application on the ground that since the order had not been complied with by the petitioner, the interim order granted by the Court had become inoperative automatically as such application for grant of extension of time for depositing the amount was mala-fide moved and was not justified. 8. The respondent No. 3 vide order dated 28.1.2005 rejected the application for extension of time filed by the petitioner which has been challenged by him. The operative relevant portion of the order dated 28.12.2005 is as under:- ^^blds foijhr foi{khx.k }kjk vkifRr ÁLrqr djrs gq, ;g dFku fd;k x;k fd fuxjkuhdrkZ us tkucw>dj U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dk vuqikyu ugha fd;k gSA ;g Hkh dFku fd;k x;k gS fd fuxjkuhdrkZ us voj U;k;ky; esa yfEcr btjk ds nkSjku dbZ frfFk;ksa tSls 10-12-2004] 18-12-2004 ,oa 3-1-2005 dks tek fd, x, fMxzh ds rgr tek /kujkf'k dh ckcr Vs.Mj ÁLrqr djus ds fy, eqYroh ÁkFkZuk i= ÁLrqr djds dk;Zokgh Vkyrs jgsA foi{khx.k ds vuqlkj fuxjkuhdrkZ us chekjh dk >wBk cgkuk cukdj ÁkFkZuk i= ÁLrqr fd;k gS rFkk ;g ÁkFkZuk i= lO;; [kf.Mr gksus ;ksX; gSA fuxjkuhdrkZ@ÁkFkhZ dh vksj ls viuh iq=h ds chekjh vFkok vkijs'ku laca/kh dksbZ vfHkys[k U;k;ky; ds le{k ÁLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr /kkjk 148 nhokuh ÁfØ;k lafgrk esa fofgr Ákfo/kkuksa ds vuq:i U;k;ky; dks le;i= ij funsZf'kr dk;Z djus ds fy, fu;r dh x;h vof/k dks foLrkfjr djus dh vf/kdkfjrk gS ijUrq ,sls dqy foLrkj dh vof/k 30 fnu ls vukf/kd gksuh pkfg,A ÁLrqr ekeys esa ÁkFkZuk i= vkns'k dh frfFk ls 3 ekg ls vf/kd vof/k ds i'pkr ÁLrqr fd;k x;k gSA U;k;ky; }kjk fu/kkZfjr vof/k lekIr gksus ds Hkh nks ekg ls vf/kd dh vof/k O;rhr gksus ds i'pkr ;g ÁkFkZuk i= fn;k gSA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa esjs er esa ÁkFkZuk i= fof/k ds vUrZxr Lohdkj gksus ;ksX; ugha gSA fofufnZ"V fof/kd Áko/kku tks /kkjk 148 nhokuh ÁfØ;k lafgrk esa of.kZr gS dks fopkj esa ysrs gq, ÁkFkZuki= Lohdkj.kh; gSA ÁkFkZuk i= rnuqlkj fujLr fd;k x;k gSA fnukad & 28-1-2005 ¼eukst dqekj fla?ky½ vij tuin U;k;k/kh'k d{k la[;k&1] bykgkcknA** The aforesaid order has been assailed by the petitioner on the ground that the Court has failed to exercise the Jurisdiction vested in it u/s 148, C.P.C. where the Court have been provided with the power to extend the period to deposit of entire decretal amount. It is stated that the Court has not considered the circumstances and grounds for extension of time for compliance of the interim order but has illegally held that no ground has been made for extension of time. 9. In Para 15 of the writ petition, the petitioner, has submitted that he is prepared and undertakes to deposit the entire decretal amount pendent lite within the time allowed by this Court. 10. At the time of admission, the Court passed the following interim order: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. In view of the statement made in the supplementary-affidavit filed today by counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has already deposited the entire decretal amount with the trial court, the copy of challan is also annexed as SA-1 to this supplementary-affidavit. Thus, the petitioner has made out prima facie case for grant of interim order. Issue notice to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 returnable within six weeks. List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period. Till further orders of this Court, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the accommodation in dispute and also the operation of the impugned order dated 28.1.2005, passed by Upper Zila Judge, Court No. 1, Allahabad (Annexure-4 to the petition), shall remain stayed. The money deposited by the petitioner with the trial court may be withdrawn by the respondent-landlord. Sd/- Anjani Kumar, J. 21.4.2005 11. A counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents denying the averments made in the writ petition inter-alia that petitioner has been given full opportunity to deposit the decretal amount but inspite of undertaking they did not deposit the decretal amount although the revisional court had granted the conditional stay order to him dated 8.10.2004. It is also pointed in the counter-affidavit that several dates for depositing the decretal amount were granted to the petitioner but he still did not deposit the decretal amount. It has also been stated that Section 148, C.P.C. is not applicable in the instant case as it provides that whether any period is fixed for depositing the amount and for complying the order, the Court may in its discretion from time to time which period must not be existing 30 days in total even though the period were originally fixed or granted may have expired. Before filing revision u/s 25 of the Judge Small Causes Court Act, revisionist is bound to deposit the decretal amount otherwise neither the revision is maintainable nor any interim order is granted in favour of the revisionist-tenant. 12. It is urged that even though the revislonal court granted an ad interim order dated 8.10.2004 without compliance of Section 17 of the Small Causes Court Act, as the petitioner revisionist had not deposited the entire decretal amount and writ petition is not maintainable yet in spite of opportunities, the petitioner has not deposited the entire decretal amount and the revision being not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. 13. It appears that the petitioner before 19.1.2005 sought time for depositing the decretal amount on 10.12.2004, 18.12.2004 and 3.1.2005 but did not deposit the same. He again moved an application on 19.1.2005 which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 20.1.2005 giving cogent reasons therein in consonance to the provisions of Section 148, C.P.C. as the petitioner has already failed to make deposit even after more than 30 days of expiry of the original granted time by the Court for depositing the entire decretal amount. 14. A supplementary-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner inter-alia that the petitioner has complied with the directions given by this Court and has deposited the entire decretal amount alongwith the rent of next month of May, 2005 total amount of Rs. 8,000. 15. The counsel for the respondents in reply drawn the attention of para 2 of the supplementary-counter-affidavit in which it has been averred that the petitioner has concealed material facts and obtained interim order by this Court falsely stating therein that he has deposited the entire decretal amount whereas after enquiry it was found that petitioner has not deposited the entire decretal amount. 16. In Para 3 of the aforesaid supplementary-counter-affidavit it has been averred that answering respondent had already filed an objection before the Judge Small Causes Court stating therein that the petitioner before the Judge Small Causes Court has not deposited the entire decretal amount which comes to Rs. 20,052.50 out of which he has deposited the only Rs. 16. In Para 3 of the aforesaid supplementary-counter-affidavit it has been averred that answering respondent had already filed an objection before the Judge Small Causes Court stating therein that the petitioner before the Judge Small Causes Court has not deposited the entire decretal amount which comes to Rs. 20,052.50 out of which he has deposited the only Rs. 8,000 and as such, the said order is liable to be vacated on this ground alone and the writ petition as framed and filed is liable to be dismissed on this ground that the material facts has been concealed by the petitioner-tenant which is clearly evident from the perusal of the judgment and decree passed by Judge Small Causes Court, Allahabad. 17. He has also submitted that after deposit of Rs. 8,000, the petitioner has neither paid nor deposited the single penny towards the rent, which is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. 18. For the reasons that Section 148, C.P.C. was not complied with by the petitioner in letter and spirit, the courts below has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner for extension of time by the impugned order. Moreover, the petitioner has not deposited the entire decretal amount and only had deposited a part of it hence he is not entitled to any relief. 19. In view of the aforesaid, writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000 which shall be recovered from the petitioner and to be paid to the landlord. In case of non-payment of costs, the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. 20. The tenant in the circumstances is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the house in dispute to the landlord within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order, failing which, the landlord may get the petitioner evicted within a further period of one month's time in accordance with law.