Revised against an order rejecting a plea to strike out defense. Held that denying relationship does not exempt tenant from depositing monthly rent. Impugned order set aside, suit remanded to be disposed within four months.
Impugned order set aside; suit to be disposed within four months with opportunity to all parties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 58
Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 74 of 2021
Revisionist :- Vikas Sharma And Another Opposite Party :- Vijay Baisla Alias Billu Baisla Counsel for Revisionist :- Awadhesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Vinod Kumar Rai,A. K. Rai,Rajesh Kumar,Vishnu Singh
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Learned counsel for the parties are present.
Present SCC Revision is directed against the order dated 24.08.2021 passed by Addl. District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (EC ACt), Ghaziabad in Small Causes Case No. 03 of 2016, (Vikash Sharma Vs Vijay Baisla) whereby the request of plaintiffs/revisionists for striking off the defence of defendant/respondent has been rejected.
It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionists that the court below has failed to consider the fact that the defendant-respondent has been defaulter in depositing the monthly amount of rent due to revisionist. It is further submitted that the defendant has admitted that the defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff/landlord and it is further admitted by him that the rent of the premises in question was Rs. 5000/- per month and as such the finding given by the court below that there was no admitted rent of the premises in question is wholly illegal and against the evidence on record.
Learned counsel for the defendant/respondent submitted that in case the landlord-tenant's relationship is denied & there is not even prima facie evidence on record to prove the relationship, the application filed under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. should be dismissed.
It is further pointed out that the defendant-respondent had earlier approached this Court by filing SCC Revision No. 117 of 2018 (Vijay Baissala @ Billu Baissala Vs Vikas Sharma and another), which had already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 1.9.2021 with a direction to the Trial Court to decide the suit within a period of six months from the production of copy of the order by the defendant-respondent but the suit is still pending to be decided.
I have gone through the impugned order. It is settled law that where the defendant denies the existence of landlord and tenant relationship, he may not be required to deposit the amount admitted to be due at or before the first hearing of the suit but he would still be required to deposit the monthly amount due within a week from the date of its accrual throughout the continuation of the suit because such deposit has to be made in spite of the fact he admits any amount to be due or not. In view of the above the order impugned stand vitiated in law.
Accordingly, the order order dated 24.08.2021 passed by Addl. District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (EC ACt), Ghaziabad in Small Causes Case No. 03 of 2016, (Vikash Sharma Vs Vijay Baisla) is hereby set aside and the court below is directed to consider and decide the Small Causes Case No. 03 of 2016, (Vikash Sharma Vs Vijay Baisla), expeditiously, in
accordance with law, after affording notice and opportunity to all the parties, within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. However, it is also expected that court below shall make every endeavour to expedite the hearing of the said case in accordance with law. Adjournment shall be granted only under very pressing circumstances that too after imposing heavy costs on the party seeking adjournment.
The SCC revision stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 15.11.2021 RavindraKSingh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether tenant can be required to deposit rent before landlord-tenant relationship is established.
Whether Order 15 Rule 5 CPC dismissal was appropriate when prima facie evidence of relationship exists.
Whether lower court order was vitiated in law regarding rent deposit obligations.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vikas Sharma
Vijay Baisla
Shekhar Kumar Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
