This revision petition challenged the striking off of the petitioner's defence. The court found a landlord-tenant relationship and upheld the lower court's application of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC due to non-deposit of rent arrears, citing Anandi Devi vs. Om Parkash.
Revision petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.
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.
C.R. No. 1648 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 1648 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision :01.02.2013
Dr. Rekha Tukaram Dhonde
....Petitioner
V/s
Mrs. Pratibha Khan & anr.
....Respondents
BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Ms. Priyanka Sud, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the respondents.
RAJAN GUPTA J.
Present revision petition is directed against the order passed by Civil Judge (Junior Div.), Gurgaon whereby defence of the petitioner has been struck off by invoking Order 15 Rule 5 CPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order passed by the court below is unsustainable. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The premises in question always remained locked. Thus, she was not liable to pay rent.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the plea. He submits that petitioner was inducted as a tenant. After termination of tenancy on 05.03.2010, she was in unauthorized occupation of the property. As arrears of rent had not been deposited, application under Order 15 Rule 5 was moved, which has been rightly allowed by court below.
C.R. No. 1648 of 2012
2
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.
The trial court on perusal of lease-deed Ex. P2 came to the conclusion that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between respondent and petitioner. As petitioner failed to deposit arrears of rent, application under Order 15 Rule 5 has been allowed by the court below. I find no legal infirmity with the order. In the judgment reported as Anandi Devi vs. Om Parkash 1987(Supp) SCC 527, tenant failed to deposit arrears of rent along with interest and costs. Similar application was moved by the landlord. Apex court held that in such circumstances, Order 15 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure was applicable and defence of the tenant can be struck off. Accordingly, present revision petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.
February , 2013 Ajay
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the defence of the tenant can be struck off when she fails to deposit arrears of rent as per Order 15 Rule 5 CPC.
Whether the High Court is justified in dismissing the revision petition challenging the striking off of the defence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anandi Devi vs. Om Parkash 1987(Supp) SCC 527 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. Rekha Tukaram Dhonde
Mrs. Pratibha Khan
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
