The court clarified that under Order XV-A of the CPC, unauthorized occupants must pay specified amounts regardless of local market rent, emphasizing the court's discretion in determining appropriate amounts and the necessity of procedural compliance.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

C. Hari Shankar, J.

1. These petitions are in the nature of cognate proceedings. The order dated 20th March, 2021, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (ADJ) under Order XV-A(1) of the CPC, forms subject matter of challenge in CM(M) 602/2021, whereas the order dated 24th September, 2021, forming subject matter of challenge in CM(M) 851/2021, was passed by the learned ADJ under Order XV- A(2) of the CPC.

2. For ready reference, Order XV-A (1) and (2) of the CPC, as applicable to Delhi, may be reproduced thus:

" ORDER XV-A

STRIKING OFF DEFENCE IN A SUIT BY A LESSOR

(1) In any suit by a owner/lessor for eviction of an unauthorized occupant/lessee or for the recovery of rent and future mesne profits from him, the defendant shall deposit such amount as the court may direct on account of arrears upto the date of the order (within such time as the court may fix) and thereafter continue to deposit in each succeeding month the rent claimed in the suit as the court may direct. The defendant shall continue to deposit such amount till the decision of the suit unless otherwise directed.

In the event of any default in making the deposit as aforesaid, the Court may subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) strike off the defence.

(2) Before passing an order for striking off the defence, the court shall serve notice on the defendant or his Advocate to show cause as to why the defence should not be struck off, and the Court shall consider any such cause, if shown in order to decide as to whether the defendant should be relieved from an order striking off the defence."

3. Madho Singh Chauhan (in short, "Madho") is the petitioner in CM(M) 602/2021 and the respondent in CM(M) 851/2021. Ritu, the divorced wife of Madho and her four children, including Smriti, are the respondents in CM(M) 602/2021 and the petitioners in CM(M) 851/2021.

4. For the sake of convenience, they would be referred to as "Madho" and "Smriti etc".

5. The dispute pertains to a property situated at J-77, Saket, New Delhi.

6. CS 851/2018 was filed by Madho against Smriti etc., for recovery of possession, mesne profits and mandatory injunction, amongst other reliefs. The case set up by Madho in his plaint was that the suit property had initially been allotted to him by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and was, on 18th November, 2004, converted to freehold, whereafter Madho got a construction erected on the property, on the top floor of which the respondents reside.

7. The marriage between Madho and Ritu was dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 4th May, 2018. Madho contends that though, prior to the divorce, Smriti etc were in permissive possession of the top floor of the suit property, consequent on the decree of divorce, they became unauthorised occupants.

8. Contending that Smriti etc. were enjoying the suit property without paying consideration to him, Madho moved the learned Trial Court by way of CS 851/2018 claiming the reliefs already noted hereinbefore.

9. With the suit, Madho also filed an application under Order XV- A of the CPC, which came to be decided by the impugned order dated 20th March, 2021. The learned ADJ held and directed, in paras 7 and 8 of the said order, thus

"7. From the perusal of the record, it appears that plaintiff and defendant no. 5 are now divorced by a decree of divorce dated 05.03.2018 which was confirmed by order dated 04.05.2018 of the High Court, so in