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.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Upadhyay, J.

This civil revision is directed against the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned Judge SCC/1^st Additional District Judge, Haridwar in SCC Suit No.06 of 2024, “Gaurav Jain & Anr. Vs. Smt. Partibha Devi & Ors.”,

2. The revisionists have assailed the aforesaid order by which the application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC of the respondents was allowed and the defense of the revisionists was struck off.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that, the respondents herein (plaintiffs in the suit) filed the suit under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the revisionists (respondents in the suit) seeking a relief of eviction, arrears of rent and damages. The respondents claimed that their property – The Hotel Grand Lajja was given on rent to the revisionists initially at the rent of Rs.6 lakh per month and 18% GST and the tenancy started from 07.10.2021 and the rent was to be paid on the 10^th day of every month.

4. As per the case of the respondents/plaintiffs, from October, 2023 the rent was to be enhanced and from the said date the rent payable was Rs.8 lakh per month and 18% GST. As per the respondents/plaintiffs, rent since September, 2023 was not paid and only 50% of the GST amount was paid since 31.08.2023 and as such the revisionist was defaulter. A suit for eviction, arrears of rent and damages was thus filed, which was registered as Suit No.6 of 2024.

5. The revisionists / respondents filed their written statement on 03.04.2025 and did not dispute the relationship of tenant-landlord, however, disputed the amount payable towards arrears of rent on various grounds. The application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC was considered and decided on 16.10.2025 striking off the defense of the revisionists / respondents against which the present revision has been preferred.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that as per the case of the revisionists the rent from July, 2025 was only payable to the respondents. Though the rent of July, 2025 amounting to Rs.8 lakh was paid with some delay, however, the rent for the month of August and September, 2025 only could not be paid. The reasons for the delay was bonafide as negotiations were being held between the parties for which he refers to the order-sheet to contend that as talks were going on between the parties as such the rent was not paid.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionists refers to the various judgments, namely, Asha Rani Gupta Vs. Vineet Kumar (2023) 20 SCC 273, Mangat Singh Trilochan Singh Vs. Satpal (2003) 8 SCC 357, Bimal Chand Jain Vs. Sri Gopal Agarwal (1981) 3 SCC 486 and Mukesh Verma and Anr. Vs. Sushant Misra ALL. High Court in Writ Petition No.1662 of 2018. On the basis of the said judgments, learned counsel for the revisionists contends that the word ‘may’ in Sub-rule (1) of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC merely vests power in the Court to strike off the defense and it is not oblige it to do so in every case of default.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents /plaintiffs contends that the revisionist is a willful defaulter as neither the arrears of rent nor the rent of Rs.8 lakh per month was deposited before the Trial Court. He further disputed that amount of Rs.60 lakh was spent by the revisionists on the rented property.

9. He further submits that contention of the revisionists that rent was not paid on monthly basis