Failure to comply with court orders and pay dues justifies striking off the defense under Order 15 Rule 5 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

The present revision petition assails the order dated 16.12.2021 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ambala, vide which the application filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs under Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the “CPC”) for striking off the defence of the respondent-defendant was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present revision petition are that a suit (Annexure P-2) was filed by the plaintiffs (petitioners) against the defendant (respondent) for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the kiosk, which was a portion of property/plot No.180/1 to 3, Minerva Complex, Parking Side, Rai Market, Ambala Cantt (fully described in the plaint) (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property” ) and to direct the defendant to pay mesne profits.

4. The case set up was that the defendant was a licensee over the suit property in terms of the license agreement dated 27.02.2013. The license fee was Rs.15000/- per month. The same had not been paid from 01.04.2018 to 31.08.2019. Part amount was paid in August 2018, whereafter license fee from 01.09.2018 had not been paid besides the electricity charges. The license was stated to have been terminated vide legal notice dated 02.07.2019.

5. The suit was opposed by way of written statement (Annexure P-4). The factum of the defendant being a licensee under the plaintiffs and the license fee etc. were admitted. It was averred that the defendant was running a fast food café in the suit property under the name and style of “Yash Café”. On account of his hard work, business of the defendant had increased multiple times. Observing this, the plaintiffs had initially tried to forcibly remove the defendant from the suit property as a result of which a suit for permanent injunction had to be filed by the defendant against the plaintiffs, which was pending and the plaintiffs had been restrained from forcibly dispossessing the defendant from the suit property.

6. Thereafter, the electricity connection was disconnected by the plaintiffs, as a result of which another suit was filed by the defendant against the UHBVNL and the plaintiffs, which was also pending and the defendants therein were restrained from forcibly disconnecting the electricity connection. It was averred that the purpose of filing the suit was the harassment of the defendant. It was averred that the plaintiffs were big businessmen and resourceful persons having income in crores and the purpose of getting the suit property vacated was to settle their own relatives in the same. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC (Annexure P- 5) was moved by the plaintiffs, in which it was claimed that the license fee and the electricity charges amounting to Rs.4,72,936/- w.e.f. 01.04.2018 were outstanding and that the plaintiffs had an apprehension that the defendant would vacate the suit property without paying anything. Even at the time of the filing of the suit, the outstanding amount was Rs.2,62,936.025/-.

7. It was averred that the defendant had appeared before the Court on 06.11.2019 but had not paid the arrears of license fee as a result of which, the defence was liable to be struck off.

8. The application was opposed by way of reply (Annexure P-6). It was averred that if the defendant was found to be liable for mesne profits, the decree would be passed and during the period of general lockdown since March 2020, the