IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Gulshan Pahwa & Others - Petitioners
Versus
Dargah Peer Dariyanath Ji Shrawannath Nagar, Haridwar & another - Respondents
Writ Petition(M/S) No. 3397 of 2016
Decided On : 26-07-2022
CPC - Tenants' petition against the judgment and order dated 11.11.2016 - Order 15 Rule 5 of CPC
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed an application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC to strike off the tenant's defense due to delay in depositing admitted rent. The Small Cause Court rejected the application, finding that the tenant had deposited the entire admitted rent. The landlord challenged this order in the revisional court, which set aside the Small Cause Court's order. The tenant appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The revisional court's interference with the Small Cause Court's order was not warranted, as the Small Cause Court had discretion in the matter and had exercised it within jurisdiction. The High Court set aside the revisional court's judgment and requested the trial court to decide the suit promptly.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Small Cause Court's decision to reject the landlord's application under Order 15 Rule 5 of CPC was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court has discretion in striking off the defense under Order 15 Rule 5 of CPC and should consider the facts and circumstances of each case. Interference with the trial court's order by the revisional court is not justified if the trial court has lawfully exercised its jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the revisional court's judgment and requested the trial court to decide the suit promptly.
JUDGMENT :
1. This is tenants’ petition against the judgment and order dated 11.11.2016 passed by 5th Additional District Judge, Haridwar in SSC Revision No. 35 of 2015. By the said judgment, order passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 4 of 2009 by learned Judge, Small Cause Court/Civil Judge (J.D.), Haridwar was set aside and the matter was remanded back to reconsider on landlord’s application filed under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC.
2. The order passed by learned Judge Small Cause Court on 15.07.2015, which was set aside by Revisional Court is on record as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. Perusal of the said order reveals that landlord/plaintiff had filed an application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC with the contention that the tenant has not complied the provision contained in Order 15 Rule 5 CPC, therefore, his defence deserves to be struck off. Petitioners filed objection to the said application stating that they had given admitted rent between 01.02.2009 to 31.08.2009 to learned counsel for the plaintiff, and thereafter, the admitted rent is being deposited in court. Learned Judge, Small Cause Court rejected the application filed by landlord on the ground that the lis should be decided after hearing both the parties and the defence of the tenant should not be struck off merely on the ground of slight delay in deposit of admitted rent by tenant. A categorical finding was recorded by learned Judge, Small Cause Court that defendant/tenant has deposited entire admitted rent upto 30.06.2015.
3. Landlord challenged the said order passed by learned Judge, Small Cause Court by filing revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Learned 5th Additional District Judge, Haridwar has allowed the revision filed by landlord and set aside the order passed by Judge, Small Cause Court. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by revisional court, tenant has approached this Court.
4. Before proceeding any further, the provision contained in Order 15 Rule 5 of CPC, as applicable in State of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, is reproduced below:-
“5. Striking off defence on failure to deposit admitted rent, etc.-(1) In any suit by a lessor for the eviction of a lessee after the determination of his lease and for the recovery from him of rent or compensation for use and occupation, the defendant shall, at or before the first hearing of the suit, deposit the entire amount admitted by him to be due together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per centum per annum and whether or not he admits any amount to be due, he shall throughout the continuation of the suit regularly deposit the monthly amount due within a week from the date of its accrual, and in the event of any default in making, the deposit of the entire amount admitted by him to be due or the monthly amount due as aforesaid, the Court may, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), strike off his defence.
Explanation 1. The expression ‘first hearing’ means the date for filing written statement or for hearing mentioned in the summons or where more than one of such dates are mentioned, the last of the dates mentioned.
Explanation 2. The expression ‘entire amount admitted by him to be due’ means the entire gross amount, whether as rent or compensation for use and occupation, calculated at the admitted rate of rent for the admitted period of arrears after making no other deduction except the taxes, if any, paid to a local authority in respect of the building on lessor’s account and the amount, if any, paid to a acknowledged by the lessor in writing signed by him and the amount, if any, deposited in any Court under Section 30 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
Explanation 3. (1) The expression ‘monthly amount due’ means the amount due every month, whether as rent or compensation for use and occupation at the admitted rate of rent, after making no other deduction except the taxes, if any, paid to a local authority in respect of the building on lesso
Bimal Das Jain vs. Gopal Agarwal
AI
Strict compliance with the deposit requirements under Order XV Rule 5 CPC is mandatory for tenants in eviction suits, and inconsistent conduct may not entitle them to relief.
Eviction suit – Power to strike off defence is considered to be discretionary which is to be exercised with circumspection but relaxation is reserved for a bonafide tenant and not as a matter of cour....
(1) Striking off defence of tenant – Striking off defence is a serious matter and ought not to be resorted to unless there is a clear case of deliberate default or contumacious conduct on part of ten....
The provisions of Order XV Rule 5 CPC regarding the deposit of rent are mandatory and must be strictly complied with, and any deposit not made in accordance with the rule cannot enure the benefit of ....
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.
The court highlighted the importance of tenants depositing monthly rent regularly during eviction proceedings and the discretionary power of the court to strike off the defense for non-payment of ren....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.