Clear and concise pleadings are essential in presenting issues for the court's consideration, and contradictory pleas lacking sufficient cause for non-appearance may not be upheld.

JUDGMENT :

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Petitioner Sakuma Finvest Pvt. Ltd., is the tenant, and respondent Chemox Exports Imports Pvt. Ltd., is the landlord. Initially, on 12th December 2012, the landlord filed RAE Suit No.1398/3081 of 2012 against the tenant, for a decree of eviction. On 9th May 2013, the suit was decreed ex parte. Later on 7th October 2013, the tenant filed Marji Application No.666 of 2013 under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to have the ex parte decree set aside, but could not succeed. The application was dismissed on 10th February 2015.

2. Aggrieved, the tenant filed Appeal No.108 of 2015 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court, Mumbai, which was also dismissed on 6th May 2017. Eventually, the tenant filed this writ petition, questioning the Appellate Bench's order.

3. Shri Vishal Kanade, the learned counsel for the tenant, submits that Order IX Rule 13 lays down two grounds for the defendant to have an ex parte decree set aside. According to him, if the defendant could prove that no summons had been served on him or that he had been prevented for sufficient reason from appearing before the Court despite service of summons, that would suffice. In that context, Shri Kanade stresses that the tenant has taken both the pleas and placed on record sufficient material to sustain those pleas.

4. Shri Kanade has taken me through the pleadings in Marji Application and the orders rendered by the Trial Court and the Appellate Bench. According to him, the Trial Court dealt with the issue cryptically and did not assign any reason why the tenant's plea was disbelieved. On the other hand, the Appellate Bench's order, he continues, suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. To elaborate, Shri Kanade submits that though the Appellate Bench has referred to the second plea-that is, the sufficiency of reasons not to appear before the Court despite service of summons-it has erroneously concluded that there was no plea. He says there was "an oral request" to that effect.

5. Summing up his submissions, Shri Kanade wants this Court to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Trial Court, with a direction to decide the matter afresh.

6. On the contrary, Shri Girish Godbole, the learned Counsel for the landlord, has submitted that the defendant could definitely take either of those pleas, but not both: the non-service of the summons and the sufficiency of cause not to appear. They are, he maintains, mutually contradictory. He has metaphorically described it as a person's travelling on two horses, at the same time.

7. Shri Godbole has taken me to the pleadings in Marji Application. He asserts that only one of the two pleas was taken; that is non-service of the summons. According to him, the tenant has not pleaded that there had been sufficient cause for him to not appear before the court despite his receiving the summons. And about the Appellate Court's order, Shri Godbole refers to its observations that the tenant's application is deficient in pleadings. So he urges this Court not to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.

8. In reply, Shri Kanade stresses that the Appellate Court ought to have read the tenant's application, in his words, comprehensively. It is impermissible to the courts below, according to him, to dissect the pleadings technically, sentence by sentence, and, then, hold that the applicant has not pleaded one thing or another. To hammer home his contention, he relies on Shyamlal Biharilal Pandey Vs. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., (2009) 3 AIRBomR 720 and Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Union of India., (2006) 12 SCC 233

9. Heard Shri Vishal Kanade, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Girish Godbole, the learned counsel for the respondent.

Discussion:

10. Indeed, the facts are not in dispute. As pleaded by the tenant itself in the Marji application, the landlord filed the suit in 2012 for eviction. The suit was mainly on these ground