Manmohan Sarin, J.

( 1 ) BY this order, I would be deciding Civil Revision Petition No. 919 of 1997, which has been preferred against the order dated 26. 8. 1977, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, dismissing the application for review of an earlier order dated 23. 5. 1997 for deposit of rent and requiring the entire arrears to be cleared by 28. 8. 1977, failing which the defence would be struck off.

( 2 ) THIS order would also dispose of Civil Revision Petition No-925 ofl997, against the order dated 28. 8. 1997, by which the defence of the petitioner was struck off on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent/damages and the evidence of the petitioner was closed.

( 3 ) THE petitioner has assailed the impugned orders as being vitiated by material irregularity and illegal exercise of jurisdiction inasmuch as the order XXXIX, Rule 10, CPC, does not empower the Court to pass an order for striking out the defence. The petitioner further contends that since the specifically applicable provision i. e. Order XXXIX, Rule 10, CPC, did not provide for striking out the defence, resort could not be had to inherent powers under Section 151, CPC, to achieve the same.

( 4 ) THERE is hardly any controversy with regard to the factual position and the same may be noted :

(I) The petitioner is a tenant of commercial space at Antriksh Bhawan, 22, Kasturba Gandhimarg, New Delhi under the respondent. Premises were taken on rent in June, 1990, and rent was enhanced by 20% after every three years. The rent was last enhanced to Rs. 8,784. 00 per month w. e. f. July, 1996. The petitioner claims to have sent six months rent in advance in July, 1996. There is also an interest free security deposit of Rs. 36. 000/, which the petitioner claims has become adjustable. (ii) The respondent required the petitioner to vacate the premises in June, 1996 and on his failing to do so terminated the tenancy and filed a suit for possession and mesne profits. The petitioner filed its written statement raising objections on the maintainability of the suit. The petitioner moved an application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 read with Section 151, CPC, claiming that the respondent had not paid the charges for use and occupation w. e. f. August, 1996. The tenancy was terminated w. e. f. 31. 8. 1996. Since the respondent had admitted the liability for payment of Rs. 8,784. 00 per month, directions were sought to deliver and pay the admitted amount from August, 1996, without prejudice to the petitioner s claim to recover damages @ Rs. 50 per sq. ft. (iii) The learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 23. 5. 1997, directed that the arrears of rent@admittedrateof Rs. 8,784. 00 per monthbe paid. Further, that the cheques which have not been cleared or the cheques which have been tendered, but returned be again issued by the petitioner. The encashment of the cheques was to be without prejudice to the rights of the parties. The case was listed for respondent s evidence on 26. 8. 1997. The petitioner moved another application under Section 151, CPC, claiming that it had already remitted the cheques for the period July, 1996 to December, 1996 and also claimed adjustment of the security deposit because of the institution of the suit for possession. Petitioner admitted the rate of Rs. 8,784. 00 per month and arrears from January to July, 1997. Petitioner sought in review application instalments of Rs. 10,000. 00 per month due to losses in business.

( 5 ) THE learned Additional District Judge dismissed the application on 26. 8. 1997, for review holding that a period of three months had passed when the order was made on 23. 5. 1997, but no amount had been deposited by the petitioner. The case was fixed for 23. 8. 1997, by which date the entire arrears were directed to be cleared, failing which the defence of the petitioner was to be struck off. The petitioner thereupon filed the revision petition bearing No. 919/ 97, challenging the order dated 26. 8. 1997. The learne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document