Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendant-respondent. The plaintiff claimed ownership of a shop and alleged that the defendant had defaulted on rent payments since May 2010. The Trial Court struck off the defendant's defence for non-payment of rent, a decision upheld by the Revisional Court. However, the High Court later reversed this decision, granting the defendant indulgence despite acknowledging potential attempts to prolong litigation. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which mandates tenants to deposit admitted rent and current dues. The Court noted that while the High Court's discretion to strike off defence must be exercised cautiously, the tenant's failure to comply with payment obligations warranted the striking off of the defence. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the orders of the Trial Court and Revisional Court, emphasizing the necessity of compliance with rent payment requirements in eviction suits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Striking Off Defence - Non-Payment of Rent - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XV Rule 5 - The court held that the tenant's failure to deposit rent as required by law justified striking off the defence, emphasizing the discretionary nature of such orders and the need for compliance with statutory obligations (Paras 9-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was right in reversing the order striking off the defence under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the orders of the Trial Court and Revisional Court, emphasizing the necessity of compliance with rent payment obligations under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Law Points
- Eviction
- Rent Recovery
- Striking Off Defence
- Discretionary Power of Court
- Order XV Rule 5 CPC
