Explore the intricate legal interpretation of the court’s discretion in striking off the defense in a recent rent dispute case. The case delves into the application of Order XV Rule 5 CPC and the mandatory deposit of rent or damages in landlord-tenant disputes. Understanding the judicious exercise of discretion by the court sheds light on the complexities involved in such legal proceedings.
Facts
- The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit against the defendant-respondent for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation of a shop in Aligarh.
- The Trial Court struck off the defense of the defendant-respondent for failure to pay or deposit the rent, which was later approved by the Revisional Court.
- However, the High Court set aside the order of striking off the defense in its impugned order dated 02.11.2018.
- The defendant-respondent denied the landlord-tenant relationship with the plaintiff, citing that Smt. Sudha Sharma, the wife of the alleged transferor, was the one who let out the shop to him.
- The defendant-respondent contested the application of striking off defense, stating that the plaintiff was not the landlord or owner of the shop as claimed.
- The defendant-respondent alleged that rent was paid to Smt. Sudha Sharma until 31.08.2010 and disputed the notice of eviction dated 18.02.2011.
- A request for the appointment of a Court Commissioner for a site plan was made by the defendant during the evidence stage, but it was rejected by the Trial Court.
- Subsequently, the plaintiff-appellant filed another application seeking the striking off of the defense of the defendant-respondent for failure to provide evidence of rent payment.
- Leave has been granted for further proceedings in the case.
- The defendant’s application was allowed and their defense was struck off in the case.
- The defendant challenged the order in a revision which was later dismissed by the Fourth Additional District Judge.
- The Trial Court found that there was no evidence presented by the defendant to show payment of rent to the plaintiff.
- Even if the tenant denied the landlord-tenant relationship, the application under Order XV Rule 5 CPC was considered maintainable.
- The Trial Court’s decision was based on the lack of evidence regarding rent payment to the plaintiff as per the sale deed.
Also Read: Ensuring Maintenance Rights: Court’s Legal Analysis
Issue
- The issue at hand is whether the High Court was correct in reversing the order that struck off 1 defense in accordance with Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- The determination centers around the application of this rule to the present case.
- The key question is whether the High Court’s decision to reverse the order was in alignment with the legal provisions and principles governing such matters.
Also Read: Analyzing Evidentiary Value in Criminal Conviction Case
Arguments
- Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the High Court has misinterpreted and misapplied Order XV Rule 5 CPC.
- The High Court overturned considered orders from subordinate Courts without providing specific reasons or findings.
- Reference to Order XV Rule 5 CPC was made, emphasizing the requirement for the defendant-respondent to pay or deposit rent for the shop.
- The counsel highlighted the defendant’s failure to pay or deposit rent from the first hearing and throughout the suit.
- Even if the defendant denied the plaintiff’s title or the landlord-tenant relationship, he is still liable to make rent payments as per the counsel.
- The counsel argued that the defendant cannot be granted any indulgence for failing to comply with the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 CPC.
- The respondent asserts that the expression ‘may’ in Order XV Rule 5 CPC vests discretionary power in the Court to strike off the defence, but does not obligate the Court to do so in every case of default or non-payment of rent.
- The respondent has deposited the entire rent from 10.05.2010 to 10.11.2018 as per the High Court’s order and continues to make further deposits regularly.
- The respondent’s defense is supported by the decisions in Ladly Prasad v. Ram Shah Billa and Kunwar Baldevji v. The XI Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar and Ors., where the Court has not struck off the defense in similar cases.
- The respondent argues that they are not obligated to deposit rent as the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship is in dispute and can only be decided at trial.
- The respondent had paid rent to the previous landlord until a certain date and had genuine confusion regarding the ownership of the property due to discrepancies in property descriptions.
Also Read: Legal Authority and Res Judicata in Representation Matter
Analysis
- The High Court emphasized the discretionary nature of striking off the defense under Order XV Rule 5 CPC.
- However, the Court recognized that in cases of deliberate default or wilful non-performance by the defendant-tenant, the discretion to strike off the defense may be exercised.
- The common theme in various decisions is that striking off the defense is a matter of discretion to be exercised judiciously, not as a routine action.
- The High Court’s conclusion that the defendant deserved indulgence lacked substantive reasoning and was deemed assumptive.
- The Court rejected the High Court’s decision, highlighting that the statutory provisions do not mandate leniency in cases of default.
- The mandatory deposit of rent or damages under Order XV Rule 5 CPC is a fundamental principle, whether the lease is ongoing or terminated.
- The Court stressed that striking off the defense should not be a routine action but should consider all relevant facts and material on record before taking such a step.
- The discretion to strike off the defense lies with the Court, and extensions of time for depositing the rent may be granted upon due consideration.
- The Court also observed that mere denial of the landlord-tenant relationship does not absolve the tenant from depositing rent unless proven otherwise.
- The tenant’s right to make a representation against striking off the defense is acknowledged, and the Court must evaluate such representations judiciously.
- Overall, the judgment highlights the importance of discretion, good reasons, and adherence to statutory provisions in deciding whether to strike off the defense.
- In the case of Miss Santosh Mehta, the tenant, a working woman, failed to deposit rent to the landlord which was paid to her advocate.
- The court interpreted ‘prefer an appeal’ as not prohibiting the filing of an appeal but restricting the hearing until arrears of rent were paid.
- The case of Bimal Chand Jain involved the failure to deposit monthly rent regularly and to submit a representation as per Order XV Rule 5 CPC.
- The High Court’s mandatory interpretation of Order XV Rule 5 CPC was not approved, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration.
- In the case of Hisamul Islam Siddiqui, no automatic consequences were prescribed, and the court had discretion in deciding rent disputes.
- The discretion of the Rent Controller under Section 15(7) of Delhi Rent Act was highlighted, not mandating striking out defense but based on circumstances of each case.
- The court observed that striking out defense is an exceptional step, not routine, and requires deliberate default or non-payment of rent.
- The expression ‘may’ regarding the power to strike out defense has been construed as directory, not mandatory, in various rent control legislations.
- Judicial discretion must consider the statute’s scheme, circumstances of the case, and not mechanically exercise the power to strike out defense.
- Failure to pay rent must indicate wilful default for the defense to be struck out.
- In a suit by a lessor for eviction of a lessee after the determination of lease and for recovery of rent or compensation for use and occupation, the defendant must deposit the entire amount admitted by him to be due with interest at 9% per annum before the first hearing.
- The defendant must also regularly deposit the monthly amount due within a week of its accrual throughout the lawsuit.
- Failure to make these deposits may result in the Court striking off the defendant’s defence.
- The ‘entire amount admitted by him to be due’ includes the gross amount calculated at the admitted rate of rent for the admitted period of arrears, with specific deductions allowed.
- The ‘monthly amount due’ refers to the amount due every month at the admitted rate of rent with specific deductions.
- The explanation provides further clarification on the definitions and requirements for depositing the due amounts.
- The order of the High Court is not in conformity with applicable law and the case record, and is required to be set aside.
- Deposits made belatedly as per the High Court order do not benefit the defendant-respondent.
- Any deposit made under or pursuant to the order cannot erase the default already committed by the defendant-respondent.
Decision
- The plaintiff sought expeditious disposal of the suit and filed a petition before the High Court which was disposed of with directions to decide the suit expeditiously.
- The Trial Court allowed the plaintiff to amend the plaint to seek eviction of the defendant on the ground of denial of title.
- The defendant filed an additional written statement which was taken on record, and the matter was placed for the plaintiff’s evidence.
- The Trial Court has to prioritize the suit filed in 2011 for expeditious disposal, considering the restoration of its order striking off the defendant’s defence.
- Direction issued to the tenant to deposit arrears of rent, interest, and costs within one month and to pay current rent monthly during litigation.
- The operation of the impugned order of the High Court was stayed, and the Trial Court needs to proceed with the matter while keeping the observations in mind.
Case Title: ASHA RANI GUPTA Vs. VINEET KUMAR (2022 INSC 684)
Case Number: C.A. No.-004682-004682 / 2022
