Failure to deposit the monthly rent due during the pendency of the suit can lead to the striking off of the defense under Order XV Rule 5 CPC.

JUDGMENT :

Gurbir Singh, J.

1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 28.07.2023 (Annexure P-8), passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as – the Trial Court), whereby the application moved by the respondents/plaintiffs, under Order XV Rule 5 CPC, for striking off the defence of the petitioner/defendant has been allowed.

2. The brief facts, necessary for deciding the present revision petition, are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioner/defendant from the demised premises and for recovery of total rent of Rs.8,40,000/- along with interest.

3. The case of respondents/plaintiffs is that the property in question was let out to the petitioner/defendant vide lease agreement dated 01.01.2016 @ Rs.1,10,000/- per month, for a period from 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2018. It was agreed for increase of lease amount by 10% every year on the existing rent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner/defendant appeared before the Court and thereafter, on 08.12.2022, filed written statement. The petitioner/defendant admitted that period of tenancy was three years. Since the lease agreement was for a period of more than one year, so, the lease agreement was not registered. So, the same cannot be looked into for any purpose. No notice for termination of tenancy was served upon the petitioner/defendant. The lock down was imposed throughout the country w.e.f. March 2020 to August 2020 in view of COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner/defendant could not use the tenanted premises for gym activities, for which the premises was taken on rent. It was further submitted that immediately thereafter, in the month of February 2021, again gyms, schools etc. were ordered to be closed by order of the Government, which remained effective for 4-5 months. However, the petitioner/defendant, with great difficulty, kept paying the rent to the respondents/plaintiffs in cash on their demand, after withdrawing the same from the bank account. The petitioner/defendant spent a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on repair/renovation of the demised premises. It was further submitted by the petitioner/defendant in the written statement that the respondents/plaintiffs and their sons were regular members of the gym. Their memberships started in the month of January 2020 @ Rs.20,000/- per person annually. They requested the petitioner/defendant to adjust their annual fee from rent to be paid to them. So, a sum of Rs.80,000/- was adjusted from rent. Respondent/plaintiff namely Nidhi and her husband Karan Sorout of the aforesaid members also availed service of personal trainer, for which charges were @ Rs.10,000/- per month each person. The said fee of Rs.20,000/- per month was also adjusted from rent. It was the further contention of petitioner/defendant that the demised premises was constructed and completed more than 10 years ago at the time of institution of present suit, so, the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity – Rent Act) are applicable to the property in dispute.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

6. The instant suit has been filed on 02.11.2020 for possession of the demised premises by way of ejectment and for recovery of total rent amount of Rs.8,40,000/-. Five notices were sent to the petitioner/defendant by the respondents/plaintiffs, through different modes. The speed post was received back with the report of refusal and courier was served upon the employee of the petitioner/defendant. There is no dispute that the premises was taken on rent in the year 2016 for a period of three years @ Rs.1,05,000/- per month. So, relationship of landlord and tenant is not in dispute. As per the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 CPC (as applicable to the State of Haryana), the petitioner/defendant cannot escape the liability to pay the monthly rent during pendency of the case. Order XV Rule 5 CPC, as incorporate