A court may strike off a defendant's (tenant's) defence under Order 15-A CPC for wilful non-compliance with orders to deposit rent, and it may refuse to recall witnesses if the request seeks to exceed the limited scope of cross-examination allowed after a defence is struck off.

COMMON ORDER

1. All the three Memorandum of Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the orders passed by the learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in IA No.86 of 2020 (filed under Order 15-A Rule 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) dated 19.01.2023, IA No.92 of 2023 (filed under Order 15-A Rule 2 of CPC to strike off the defence) dated 17.10.2023 and in IA No.42 of 2024 (to recall PW.1) in OS No.498 of 2020, dated 11.03.2024.

2. Petitioner is the respondent-defendant and respondent is the petitioner-plaintiff in IA.No.86 of 2020 and in IA No.92 of 2023. petitioner is the petitioner-defendant and respondent is the respondent-plaintiff in IA No.42 of 2024.

CRP No.1865 of 2023

3. Petitioner-respondent-defendant has challenged the order passed by the learned trial Court in IA.No.86 of 2020 dated 19.01.2023 filed by the respondent-petitioner-plaintiff under Order 15-A Rule 1 & 2 of CPC to pay arrears of rent of Rs.3,68,000/- for the period from March, 2020 to June, 2020 @ Rs.92,000/- per month and also to pay future rents from July, 2020 onwards till the date of disposal of the suit which was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 19.01.2023.

CRP No.202 of 2024

4. Petitioner-respondent-defendant has challenged the order in IA.No.92 of 2023 dated 17.10.2023 which is filed by the respondent-petitioner-plaintiff under Order 15A Rule 2 of CPC to strike off the defence of the petitioner-defendant. In view of non compliance of the order in IA.No.86 of 2020 dated 19.01.2023, the learned trial court has allowed the application.

CRP No.1055 of 2024

5.1. Petitioner has challenged the common order passed in IA.No.42 of 2024 dated 11.03.2024 where in the application filed by her under Order 18 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC to recall PW.1, came to be dismissed.

5.2. No revision is filed against the orders in IA.No.43 of 2024 (Re-open the plaintiff’s evidence) dated 11.03.2024. (Learned Trial Court has passed common orders in IA.No.42 of 2024 and IA.No.43 of 2024).

6.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner in all the CRPs contends that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the non payment of rent was neither wilful nor deliberate, but occasioned due to severe financial constraints and health related exigencies and the petitioner is facing acute financial distress during COVID-19 pandemic, it is a matter of public knowledge that the pandemic severely affected the entire world causing unprecedented financial loss and hardships. During the said period, schools, colleges, hospitals, and other essential establishments were either shut down or functioning under severe restrictions which drastically impacted livelihoods and business activities. Petitioner could not make the regular payment of rent for the disputed premises and the default was neither wilful nor wanton, but was solely attributable to the exceptional and unavoidable circumstances. Petitioner has approached the respondent-owner of the property on several occasions to resolve the issue amicably, after discussion between the parties, they mutually agreed to fix the rent of the said premises at Rs.25,000/- per month, pursuant to the said understanding, the petitioner has been paying the agreed rent regularly and diligently without any default. Respondent-Landlord has filed a Civil Suit before Ranga Reddy District Court in OS No. 719 of 2020, the same was not pressed subsequently.

6.2. The learned trial Court failed to consider the temporary inability to pay rent due to bonafide reasons. This Court was pleased to direct the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.25 Lakhs in CRP No.202 of 2024 and in compliance of the same, she paid the amount and filed a Calculation Memo. Respondent has raised a dispute in respect of Rs.5 Lakhs, she attempted to take un