Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Spazeclub Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Venus Cotspin Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vikram Aggarwal, J.
The instant revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 07.12.2024 (Annexure P.22) passed by the Commercial Court, Gurugram (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commercial Court'), vide which an application preferred by the respondent-plaintiffs under Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the CPC') was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner-defendants to pay a sum of Rs.1,43,21,475/- within a period of one month. Challenge has also been laid to order dated 15.01.2025 (Annexure P.23), vide which the defence of the petitioner-defendants was struck off.
2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that respondent No.1-M/s Venus Cotspin Pvt. Ltd., is the owner of property bearing plot No. 530, Udyog Vihar Phase-V, Gurugram (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property'). Respondent No.1 is stated to have raised construction over the suit property consisting of a basement and four floors (ground, first, second and third floors) apart from machine(s) room etc. A lease deed dated 07.03.2018 (Annexure P.2) was executed between the respondent-plaintiffs and the pet
Non-compliance with lease payment obligations allows the court to strike off the defense under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC.
Failure to regularly deposit admitted monthly rent under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC without timely representation constitutes deliberate defiance justifying striking off tenant's defence in eviction suit.
Failure to comply with court orders and pay dues justifies striking off the defense under Order 15 Rule 5 of the CPC.
The burden of proof lies with the tenant to establish payment of arrears of rent, and failure to deposit rent during the pendency of the Suit can lead to eviction.
A tenant denying rent is not required to deposit until the court adjudicates the issue of tenancy, as per Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The court held that excess rent payments negate claims of default, emphasizing judicial discretion in striking off defenses under Order XV Rule V of C.P.C.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
