This revision petition challenges an order under Article 227 quashing an order where the Civil Judge directed respondents to deposit admitted rent without striking off their defence despite alleged non-compliance. The High Court upheld the order.
Revision petition dismissed; impugned order of the Civil Judge upholding.
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.
211
CR No.4044 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: August 28, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arun Goyal and others
...Petitioners
Versus
M/s Impression and Innovation and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Kunal Mulwani, Advocate for the respondents.
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioners have filed this revision petition against respondents under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of impugned order dated 18.05.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Panchkula.
In the revision petition, it is mainly stated that petitioners filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment of the respondent from half portion of ground floor and half portion of basement. The petitioners also filed application maintaining that the lease money @ `3 lacs per month was contractual one and had been accepted by the respondent in the registered lease deed dated 17.03.2008, though respondents objected to the application alleging manipulation in the lease deed. It is further stated in the petition that learned Court below has erred in law in ignoring that at the stage of deciding the application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC, the document i.e. lease deed VINEET GULATIdated 17.03.2008 registered by Sub Registrar should prevail. 2014.09.04 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CR No.4044 of 2012
-2-
Notice of motion was issued and respondents appeared through counsel and contested the petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
At this time, there is dispute between the parties regarding the rate of rent. As per registered lease deed, rate of rent w.e.f 01.06.2007 to 31.05.2008 was 40,000/-, from 01.06.2008 to 31.05.2009 43,000/-, from 01.06.2009 to 31.05.2010 46,225/- and from 01.06.2010 to 31.10.2010 was 49,690/-. These rates have been typed in the lease deed and the next disputed rate of rent is written with hand as 01.11.2010 to 30.11.2010 @ 3 lacs. The respondents allege that this entry has been manipulated. At this stage, the admitted rate of rent by the defendants/respondents is 49,690/-. As per order passed in application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC, learned Civil Judge has directed defendants to pay `49,690/plus agreed annual enhancement @ 7.5% per annum and the defendants were directed to deposit the admitted amount of rent with interest @ 9% per annum, which was outstanding on the date of filing of suit, within one month, failing which their defence will be struck off. Learned counsel for the petitioner has nowhere showed to this Court that this provision is mandatory and defence must struck off. The Court has every power to ask the defendants to deposit admitted rate of rent along with interest within a specific period and if the defendant did not comply with the orders, then their defence can be struck off. This order has already been passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior
VINEET GULATI 2014.09.04 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CR No.4044 of 2012
-3-
Division), Panchkula vide impugned order.
As per explanation-II provided in Order 15 Rule 5 CPC, “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 building on lessor's account and the amount, if any deposited in any Court. Sub rule (2) of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC provides that “before making an order for striking off defence, the Court may consider any representation made by the defendant in that behalf provided such representation is made within 10 days of the first hearing or of the expiry of the week referred in Sub Section (1), as the case may be.”
Therefore, from the record, I find that this disputed rate of rent is to be decided later on when the parties will produce evidence. At this stage, the order is to be passed as per admitted rate of rent by defendant and admitted period of which the rent was not paid along with interest.
In view of the above discussion, I find that the impugned order dated 18.05.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Panchkula, is correct and as per law and the same is upheld.
Resultantly, finding no merit in the revision petition, the
same is dismissed.
(INDERJIT SINGH) JUDGE
August 28, 2014 VINEET GULATIVgulati 2014.09.04 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is justified in upholding the lower court's order under Article 227 regarding the striking off of defence for non-payment of admitted rent.
Whether the expression 'entire amount admitted' under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC requires deduction of disputed rent rates to be decided later.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Arun Goyal and others
M/s Impression and Innovation and another
INDERJIT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
