JUDGMENT : J.J. Munir, J. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.8.2021 passed by the District Judge, Meerut in S.C.C. Revision No. 12 of 2021, dismissing the said revision preferred by the petitioner-tenant and upholding the order of the Judge, Small Cause Court dated 16.3.2021 in S.C.C. Suit No. 78 of 2014, clarifying the position that the tenant's defence stood stuck off in terms of an earlier order passed by the Trial Court on 15.2.2021. Also, under challenge is a judgment and order dated 17.1.2022 passed by the District Judge, Meerut, dismissing S.C.C. Revision No. 19 of 2021 and affirming an order dated 31.8.2021 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Meerut in S.C.C. Suit No. 78 of 2014. The latter orders of the Revisional Court and the Trial Court are a sequel to the two earlier orders, hereinabove mentioned, passed by the Revisional Court and the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the motion to admit this petition to hearing. 3. According to the plaintiff-respondents (for short, 'the landlords'), the defendant-petitioner/tenant (for short, 'the tenant') is a tenant in a part of Bungalow No. 143, B.C. Lines, Civil Lines, Meerut since 12.8.2010. The rate of rent is Rs. 6000/- per month. The tenancy is one from month to month. The provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable. The tenancy has been determined through a notice to quit dated 23.8.2014, served upon the tenant on 26.8.2014. Upon receipt of notice, the tenant paid arrears of rent and electricity charges until August, 2014. 4. A suit for eviction has been instituted, where arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.9.2014 and damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 250/- per day w.e.f. 25.9.2014 have been sought. 5. The tenant has contested the suit on various pleas raised in the written statement and amongst others has asserted the facts that for the months of September and October, 2014, he had remitted rent vide Cheque No. 184886 dated 1.10.2014 and Cheque No. 184894 dated 5.11.2014, which the landlords did not present to their Bank for collection. Again, rent for the month of November and December, 2014 was remitted by registered post, which was not accepted. Again, rent for the month of November and December, 2014 was remitted by registered post, which was not accepted. Thereafter, the rent was remitted, according to the tenant, by money order dated 2.12.2014 together with electricity charge, but the landlords maliciously in connivance with the Postman, did not receive it. This part of the pleadings of the tenant this Court has referred to, because otherwise from a reading of the written statement, it is difficult to comprehend the tenant's stand. 6. From what this Court understands is that the suit for eviction has proceeded, wherein the landlords have moved two successive applications bearing Paper No. 58-C and 71-C, asking the Court to strike off the tenant's defence. In these applications, the case made out is that rent has not been paid for 41 months preceding, amounting to Rs. 2,46,000/-. These applications were rejected so far as the prayer for striking off the defence is concerned, but the Court gave opportunity to deposit the entire rent etc. within 10 days. It has figured in the orders passed by the Courts below, to which reference shall shortly be made that the tenant filed objections to these applications bearing Paper No. 60-C, 62-C and 180-C urging a plea that he had spent a sum of Rs. 1,66,310/- on repairs, painting and maintenance of the tenanted premises under an oral permission by the landlords. 7. The Trial Court while disposing of the application dated 15.2.2021 noticed the landlords' stand about the plea for a set off against arrears of rent, of money claimed by the tenant to have been spent on repairs under an oral permission of the landlords. It is recorded that the landlords have denied granting any such consent. The Court has, therefore, remarked in the order dated 15.2.2021 that the issue can be determined at the trial or the tenant may bring a separate suit for recovery of the expenditure claimed to be made, if so advised. Still, as already noted, the Trial Court did not strike off the tenant's defence vide order dated 15.2.2021. The tenant did not comply with the order dated 15.2.2021. Instead, he moved an application bearing Paper No. 182-C pointing out discrepancies in the order passed by the Trial Court. 8. Still, as already noted, the Trial Court did not strike off the tenant's defence vide order dated 15.2.2021. The tenant did not comply with the order dated 15.2.2021. Instead, he moved an application bearing Paper No. 182-C pointing out discrepancies in the order passed by the Trial Court. 8. Amongst these, it was pointed out that the Trial Court, by its order dated 15.2.2021, on the one hand had remarked that no finding about the expenditure incurred by the tenant on repairs etc. could be recorded at the stage of disposal of applications, Paper Nos. 58-C and 78-C by the landlord for striking off the tenant's defence, which has to await trial, but on the other the prayer for setting off the said expenditure incurred by the tenant was rejected. This was criticized as an inherent contradiction vitiating the order dated 15.2.2021 passed by the Trial Court. The order dated 15.2.2021 was also criticized for the reason that under Order XV Rule 5 CPC, according to the tenant, the Trial Court could either reject the application, which he did, but could not issue a direction to the tenant to deposit the dues within 10 days, going by the provisions of the Statute. 9. There was a prayer made in the application, Paper No. 182-C that the part of the Trial Court's order dated 15.2.2021, by which a direction had been made requiring the tenant to deposit the rent within 10 days, may be reviewed in terms of the lease deed and a proper order passed. The said application was objected to by the landlords putting in their reply to the effect that the application was moved to delay proceedings. A sum of Rs. 2,58,000/- had fallen due as arrears of rent, which the tenant had to make good. The rent that had accrued was for a period of 43 months at the rate of Rs. 6000/- per month. The application was not maintainable. The Trial Court vide order dated 16.3.2021 rejected the tenant's application, Paper No. 182-C and held that since the order dated 15.2.2021, earlier passed by the Court, had not been complied with by depositing all the dues of rent etc. within the time allowed, the tenant's defence stood struck off in terms of the order dated 15.2.2021. 10. The Trial Court vide order dated 16.3.2021 rejected the tenant's application, Paper No. 182-C and held that since the order dated 15.2.2021, earlier passed by the Court, had not been complied with by depositing all the dues of rent etc. within the time allowed, the tenant's defence stood struck off in terms of the order dated 15.2.2021. 10. The tenant preferred an S.C.C. Revision from the said order to the District Judge of Meerut, that was registered on the file of the learned Judge as S.C.C. Revision No. 12 of 2021. The revision has been heard and decided by means of the order dated 16.8.2021, substantially upholding the order made by the Trial Court, but as a matter of equity, justice and good conscience, much like the Trial Court, granting 14 days' further time to the tenant to comply with the order dated 15.2.2021, that is to say, w.e.f. the date of the Revisional Court's order. To the above extent alone, the revision was allowed, substantially upholding the Trial Court's order dated 16.3.2021. 11. After the Revisional Court's judgment dated 16.8.2021, the tenant did not take advantage of the relief granted by depositing the entire outstandings within 14 days of the said judgment. Instead, he made two applications bearing Paper No. 205 x and 208 x , to which replies bearing Paper Nos. 206 x and 209 x were filed by the landlords. On occasion the relief sought by the applications bearing Paper Nos. 205 x and 208 x is substantially to the same effect as the one earlier sought and refused. It was urged in both these applications that on account of the unexpected loss of livelihood arising out of the Covid-19 pandemic, he was not in a position to make good the deposit of rent etc. as ordered by the Court within the time allowed. The tenant prayed that he may be permitted to make good the deposit of the entire outstanding rent in monthly installments of Rs. 25,000/-. The said applications were held to be not maintainable, inasmuch as the Trial Court remarked that it was bound by the orders of the Revisional Court, which had not granted any such relief to the tenant. It was also held that the Court did not have any jurisdiction to permit the tenant to deposit the rent due in installments. 25,000/-. The said applications were held to be not maintainable, inasmuch as the Trial Court remarked that it was bound by the orders of the Revisional Court, which had not granted any such relief to the tenant. It was also held that the Court did not have any jurisdiction to permit the tenant to deposit the rent due in installments. The applications 205 x and 208 x were accordingly rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 31.8.2021. 12. Aggrieved by the said order, an S.C.C. Revision was instituted by the tenant before the District Judge of Meerut. This revision came to be numbered as S.C.C. Revision No. 19 of 2021 on the file of the learned District Judge, Meerut. It was heard and dismissed by the Revisional Court vide judgment and order dated 17.1.2022. While dismissing the S.C.C. Revision No. 19 of 2021, the District Judge has expedited the trial of the suit, taking note of a Circular dated 29.10.2003 issued by this Court on the administrative side. This has been done bearing in mind that the landlords are senior citizens. The Trial Court has been directed to decide the suit within three months after normal functioning of the Court is restored. 13. The tenant has instituted this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 31.8.2021 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, rejecting the tenant's applications, Paper Nos. 205 x and 208 x and the order dated 17.1.2022, affirming it in Revision No. 19 of 2022, passed by the learned District Judge, Meerut. The tenant has also prayed that the order dated 15.2.2021 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court and the order dated 16.8.2021 passed by the learned District Judge in S.C.C. Revision No. 12 of 2021 be set aside. The tenant has further sought a direction to the Judge, Small Cause Court to accept the rent due in monthly installments of Rs. 25,000/-. 14. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the tenant and perusing the record, this Court is of clear opinion that this petition is singularly devoid of merit. The provisions of Order XV Rule 5 CPC, as amended in their application to the State of Uttar Pradesh, read: ''5. 25,000/-. 14. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the tenant and perusing the record, this Court is of clear opinion that this petition is singularly devoid of merit. The provisions of Order XV Rule 5 CPC, as amended in their application to the State of Uttar Pradesh, read: ''5. Striking off defence on failure to deposit admitted rent, etc.-(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 admitted by him to be due together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per centum per annum and whether or not he admits any amount to be due, he shall throughout the continuation of the suit regularly deposit the monthly amount due within a week from the date of its accrual, and in the event of any default in making, the deposit of the entire amount admitted by him to be due or the monthly amount due as aforesaid, the Court may, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), strike off his defence. Explanation 1.-The expression 'first hearing' means the date for filing written statement or for hearing mentioned in the summons or where more than one of such dates are mentioned, the last of the dates mentioned. Explanation 2.-The expression 'entire amount admitted by him to be due' means the entire gross amount, whether as rent or compensation for use and occupation, calculated at the admitted rate of rent for the admitted period of arrears after making no other deduction except the taxes, if any, paid to a local authority in respect of the building on lessor's account *[and the amount, if any, paid to the lessor acknowledged by the lessor in writing signed by him] and the amount, if any, deposited in any Court under Section 30 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Explanation 3.-(1) The expression 'monthly amount due' means the amount due every month, whether as rent or compensation for use and occupation at the admitted rate of rent, after making no other deduction except the taxes, if any, paid to a local authority in respect of the building on lessor's account. Explanation 3.-(1) The expression 'monthly amount due' means the amount due every month, whether as rent or compensation for use and occupation at the admitted rate of rent, after making no other deduction except the taxes, if any, paid to a local authority in respect of the building on lessor's account. (2) Before making an order for striking off defence, the Court may consider any representation made by the defendant in that behalf provided such representation is made within 10 days, of the first hearing or, of the expiry of the week referred to in sub-section (1), as the case may be. (3) The amount deposited under this rule may at any time be withdrawn by the plaintiff: Provided that such withdrawal shall not have the effect of prejudicing any claim by the plaintiff disputing the correctness of the amount deposited: Provided further that if the amount deposited includes any sums claimed by the depositor to be deductible on any account, the Court may require the plaintiff to furnish the security for such sum before he is allowed to withdraw the same.'' 15. A reading of the provisions of Rule 5 does not spare a shadow of doubt that deposit at the first hearing of the suit is to be made of all arrears of rent, admitted by the tenant to be due, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. This is one part of the tenant's obligation. The other is that, throughout the continuation of the suit, the tenant has to regularly deposit the monthly rent within a week from the date of its accrual. In the event of default, either in the deposit of the admitted rent due on the first date of hearing, or the regular deposit of monthly rent within a week of its falling due, the Court is empowered to strike off the tenant's defence. In the event of default, either in the deposit of the admitted rent due on the first date of hearing, or the regular deposit of monthly rent within a week of its falling due, the Court is empowered to strike off the tenant's defence. Explanation 2 to sub-Rule (1) of Rule 5 of Order XV defines the expression ''entire amount admitted to be due'' as the gross sum of money, due on account of rent or damages for use and occupation, calculated at the admitted rate of rent, for the admitted period that it is in arrears after deduction of nothing else but taxes, if any, paid to the Local Authority, relating to the tenanted premises on the lessor's account and the amount, if any, deposited under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 16. By virtue of Explanation 3, the monthly amount due has been defined as the amount due every month, whether on account of rent or damages for use and occupation, at the admitted rate of rent, without deducting anything except taxes paid to a Local Authority on the lessor's account, in respect of the tenanted premises. By the provisions of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 5 of Order XV, it has been made explicit that while making an order striking off defence, the Court may consider any representation made by the tenant in that behalf, provided the representation is preferred within 10 days of the first hearing or of the expiry of the week, referred to in sub-Rule (1) of Rule 5. 17. Thus, there is a clear period of 10 days only during which, in respect of the first part of the obligation under sub-Rule (1) or under the second part, the Court may consider a representation regarding the delay in deposit. Beyond that period of time, that is to say, 10 days, in one case from the date of first hearing and in the other from the expiry of a week, when the rent falls due, the Court cannot consider the tenant's representation against the order striking off the defence. The first part of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 5 clearly relates to the accrued arrears of rent/damages for use and occupation at the time of institution of the suit, which have to be made good, on or before the first hearing of the suit. 18. The first part of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 5 clearly relates to the accrued arrears of rent/damages for use and occupation at the time of institution of the suit, which have to be made good, on or before the first hearing of the suit. 18. In this case, the condonable 10 days are to be reckoned with effect from the date of first hearing. For the second part of sub-Rule (1) aforesaid, it is after the lapse of a week during the course of every month, when the rent falls due and is not paid within the week, that the Court may consider a representation against striking off defence, if made within 10 days of the expiry of one week as aforesaid. This is a schedule of time, beyond which the Court has no discretion to consider any representation or extend time to deposit the rent due; both as regards the first part of the Rule as well as the second part. 19. Here, a reading of the impugned order dated 15.2.2021 passed by the Trial Judge shows that it is a case, where the tenant deposited monthly rent, lastly for the period 1.7.2017 to 31.7.2017 on 10.10.2017. Thereafter, for the period 1.8.2017 to 31.12.2020, for a period of 41 months, the tenant did not deposit the monthly rent due, within a week of its accrual, in accordance with his liability under the second part of Order XV Rule 5(1) CPC. Instead, he made applications for adjustment of rent due against expenses towards painting and repairs etc., which is not at all relevant under Order XV Rule 5 CPC. It was for a very valid reason and on good grounds that the Trial Court declined to accept the tenant's application to set off expenditure incurred towards panting and maintenance of the demised premises, as claimed by the tenant. Still, however, the Trial Court refused to strike off the tenant's defence and granted him one opportunity to deposit all the outstandings of rent within 10 days. It was, however, ordered that in case all outstandings of rent were not made good within the period of 10 days, the tenant's defence would automatically stand struck off. 20. In the opinion of this Court, the order dated 15.2.2021 is an instance of some error committed that goes to the tenant's benefit. It was, however, ordered that in case all outstandings of rent were not made good within the period of 10 days, the tenant's defence would automatically stand struck off. 20. In the opinion of this Court, the order dated 15.2.2021 is an instance of some error committed that goes to the tenant's benefit. And, that is that on the findings recorded, the Trial Court did not immediately strike off the tenant's defence. Rather, 10 days' time was granted to deposit the rent due with a default clause that upon failure to do so, the defence would stand automatically struck off. Obviously, if the Trial Court has erred in granting time to the tenant to make good the deposit of all rent due, failing which the defence would stand automatically struck off on the expiry of 10 days, it is an infirmity which the tenant cannot capitalize upon. Strangely enough, the tenant has criticized the aforesaid error in the order that is to his advantage, while assailing the order dated 15.2.2021 and the later order dated 16.3.2021, in Revision No. 12 of 2021 before the learned District Judge. Since the due rent was not deposited within 10 days and the tenant made a further application, Paper No. 182 x asking the Judge, Small Cause Court, to review his order dated 15.2.2021, bearing in mind the terms of lease deed dated 28.9.2010 between parties and pass orders afresh, the Trial Judge rejected the said application, holding that the defence stood struck off for non-compliance of the order dated 15.2.2021. Both these orders when assailed in revision, were upheld on merits by the learned District Judge, Meerut vide judgment and order dated 16.8.2021. But, again with an indulgence in favour of the tenant. This time, the tenant was granted 14 days' time to comply with the order dated 15.2.2021, failing which the consequences of the defence being struck off, would revive. 21. This Court must say again that this direction too was not warranted under the law. It was an equity, overstepping the law. That done, the tenant did not, as already said, take advantage of the order and has persisted in his dilatory efforts. He moved applications, Paper Nos. 205 x and 208 x for deposit of due rent in installments. This Court must say again that this direction too was not warranted under the law. It was an equity, overstepping the law. That done, the tenant did not, as already said, take advantage of the order and has persisted in his dilatory efforts. He moved applications, Paper Nos. 205 x and 208 x for deposit of due rent in installments. Those applications were rightly rejected by the Judge, Small Cause Court and affirmed in revision, also rightly by the learned District Judge, vide judgment and order dated 17.1.2022. 22. Whatever the learned Counsel for the tenant has said in assail of these orders, is only stated to be rejected. The clear mandate of Order XV Rule 5 CPC, in the way it has been interpreted by this Court and the Supreme Court, do not spare any doubt about the limited right of a tenant to escape the rigours of the rule prescribing for his defence to be struck off. The rule cannot be applied in the manner, the tenant wants. There are some decisions, such as those in Dr. Ram Prakash Mishra (Dead) v. IVth Additional District Judge, Etah and another, 1999 (1) ARC 7, Habiburahaman v. District Judge, Jhansi and others, 2000 (1) ARC 4, Sanjay Agrawal v. Ganga Prasad Agrawal and another, 2009 (1) ARC 291 , which hold that the Court has the reserve power to reject the application seeking to strike off the defence, but that has to be done in a case where indeed there is material to show that the revisionist has substantially complied with his obligations and for some reason, there has been a technical default. These issues were considered by this Court in Pushpa Gupta v. Subhash Chandra and another, 2019(8) ADJ 376, where it was held: 50. The provisions contained under Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C., have been consistently held to be mandatory, and it has been held that the benefits conferred on tenants under the rent control legislation can be enjoyed only on the basis of strict compliance of the statutory provisions. There is no provision to claim exemption from complying with the conditions under Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C. apart from consideration of a representation made by the defendant as per Order 15 Rule 5 (2) C.P.C. 53. There is no provision to claim exemption from complying with the conditions under Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C. apart from consideration of a representation made by the defendant as per Order 15 Rule 5 (2) C.P.C. 53. It has been consistently held that the tenant is required to comply with the requirements of Order XV Rule 5 CPC and make the deposits strictly in accordance with the procedure contained therein, and any deposit not made in consonance with the said rule cannot enure the benefit of the tenant. Also, the amount to be deposited by the tenant during the continuation of the suit is required to be deposited in the Court where the suit is filed failing which the Court may strike off the defence of the tenant since the deposits made by the tenant under Section 30 after the first hearing of the suit cannot be taken into consideration. 54. The provisions under Order XV Rule 5(2) provides a locus poenitentiae to the defaulting tenant to make a representation, which must be made within ten days of the first hearing or within a week from the date of accrual of rent as the case may be, and if the representation is not made within the specified time the Court has no jurisdiction to consider a time barred representation or condone the delay or extend time. Apart from the aforementioned provision of filing a representation there is no provision wherein exemption can be claimed from complying the conditions under Order XV Rule 5. 55. The judgments in the case of Dr. Ram Prakash Mishra (since deceased) v. IVth Additional District Judge, Etah and another, 1999 (1) ARC 7, Habiburahaman v. District Judge, Jhansi and others, 2000 (1) ARC 4 and Sanjay Agrawal v. Ganga Prasad Agrawal and another, 2009 (1) ARC 291 , upon which reliance has been sought to be placed by the revisionist are to the effect that if there is sufficient material on record to indicate that there are good reasons for condoning the default the Court has a reserve power to reject the application for striking off the defence. There can be no quarrel with the aforementioned legal proposition that powers under Order XV Rule 5 are not to be exercised in the case of a mere technical default. 23. There can be no quarrel with the aforementioned legal proposition that powers under Order XV Rule 5 are not to be exercised in the case of a mere technical default. 23. In this connection, the remarks of the Division Bench in Haider Abbas v. Additional District Judge and others, 2006(1) ADJ 197 (All) (DB), that bear upon the point, read: 23. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Atma Ram (supra) emphasizes that if the tenant wishes to take advantage of the beneficial provisions of the Rent Control Act, he must strictly comply with the requirements and if any condition precedent is required to be fulfilled before the benefit can be claimed, the tenant must strictly comply with that condition failing which he cannot take advantage of the benefit conferred by such a provision. It has further been emphasised that the rent must be deposited in the Court where it is required to be deposited under the Act and if it is deposited somewhere else, it shall not be treated as a valid payment/tender of the rent and consequently the tenant must be held to be in default. 24. In view of the aforesaid principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Atma Ram (supra), it has to be held that the tenant must comply with the requirements of Order XV, Rule 5, CPC and make the deposits strictly in accordance with the procedure contained therein. A deposit which is not made in consonance with the aforesaid Rule cannot enure to the benefit of the tenant and, therefore, only that amount can be deducted from the 'monthly amount'' required to be deposited by the tenant during the pendency of the suit which is specifically mentioned in Explanation 3 to Rule 5 (1) of Order XV, CPC. 24. In this case, one could have thought that owing to the extraordinarily adverse circumstances that humanity faced in consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic, as a one time measure, the Court shall have exercised its reserve power to decline striking off defence and afforded opportunity to the tenant to comply with the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 CPC, saving his defence, but that situation would legitimately arise where the tenant simply prayed for some time to comply with the requirements of deposit under Order XV Rule 5 CPC. Here, the stand of the tenant has been very iniquitous. He has come up with different kinds of prayers, through various applications, to ward off of his liability under Order XV Rule 5 CPC. In the first instance, he asked for adjustment of the rent due against the expenditure incurred on the maintenance and painting of the demised premises, which could not be done. Later on, he moved another application, seeking a review of the order dated 15.2.2021, which in fact granted him indulgence of not striking off his defence by extending some time to deposit the rent due. Still later, after losing before the Revisional Court, he did not avail of the opportunity to make good the deposit of rent under Order XV Rule 5 CPC and came up with a fresh prayer to deposit the rent due in installments of Rs. 25,000/-, that could never be done under Order XV Rule 5 CPC. We think that on two occasions, in the first round of agitation of his rights by the tenant, the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court passed some non-conservative orders, granting indulgence of an extended time before defence of the tenant would stand struck off. It might have been a decision taken in the background of the Covid-19 pandemic, though not said so by the Courts in the orders impugned. 25. The Revisional Court in the earlier instance extended time for the tenant to comply with the order dated 15.2.2021 passed by the Trial Court, the benefit whereof he had lost, which the tenant again did not avail. Instead, he took up cudgels again against the landlords by moving the Trial Court for a different relief in the matter of deposit of rent, which we have already mentioned above. The aforesaid conduct of the tenant does not entitle him to any further indulgence. The provisions of Order XV Rule 5 CPC cannot come to the tenant's aid any further, the time for compliance thereunder having long expired. Moreover, the stand of the tenant, that has been consistently vacillating and smacking of in equity, does not entitle him to relief in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 26. This petition is, accordingly, rejected. 27. The interim stay order dated 20.5.2022 is hereby vacated. Order on Civil Misc. Application No. 2 of 2022 28. The application is disposed of. 29. 26. This petition is, accordingly, rejected. 27. The interim stay order dated 20.5.2022 is hereby vacated. Order on Civil Misc. Application No. 2 of 2022 28. The application is disposed of. 29. For orders, see my order of date passed on Matter under Article 227 No. 1562 of 2022. Order on Civil Misc. Recall Application No. 3 of 2022 30. The application is disposed of. 31. For orders, see my order of date passed on Matter under Article 227 No. 1562 of 2022.