High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the revision petition upholding the lower court’s order striking off the defence of respondents in a landlord-tenant dispute for failure to pay rent as admitted.
The revision petition was dismissed and the order dated 23.04.2014 striking off the defence was upheld.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.5081 of 2014 Date of decision: August 28, 2014
108
Sanjeev Kumar and others
...Petitioners
Versus
Sucha Singh and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioners have filed this revision petition against respondents under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 23.04.2014 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khanna, whereby application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC filed by the petitioner for striking off the defence of the respondents, has been dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record as well as the impugned order.
From the record, I find that learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khanna, vide impugned order dated 23.04.2014 observed that 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 VINEET GULATIperiod of arrears after making no other deduction except the taxes, if 2014.09.04 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CR No.5081 of 2014
-2-
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.”
In the present case, petitioners-plaintiffs are claiming interest @ 5,000/- per month with effect from 01.07.2006 whereas the defendants' case is that they have taken the property @ 40/- per month, which was later on enhanced to 300/- per month and it was an oral tenancy. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the admitted rate of rent by the defendant is 300/- per month w.e.f 01.07.2006. Accordingly, the Court passed the order to pay the arrears within 45 days and in future they are to make the monthly rent payment within 7 days after the amount becomes due, failing which their defence shall be struck off. No illegality has been committed while passing the impugned order.
In view of the above discussion, I find that the impugned order dated 23.04.2014 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge, Khanna, 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 Vgulati
VINEET GULATI 2014.09.04 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower court’s order under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC regarding striking off the defence of non-ayment of rent.
Whether the admitted rate of rent and the explanation under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC were correctly applied by the trial court.
Whether the order of the Addl. Civil Judge Khanna dated 23.04.2014 in revision petition is upheld.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sanjeev Kumar and others
Sucha Singh and another
INDERJIT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
