VIJAY KUMAR KAKKAR Vs. SHIV NARAYAN YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order of the trial court dated 10.7.2014 by which the trial court has struck off the defence of the petitioner/defendant/tenant for non-compliance of the order for deposit of pendente lite rent which was passed on 25.3.2014.

(2.) The only ground which was urged by the petitioner/defendant/tenant for non-compliance was that the order dated 25.3.2014 was not known by the counsel for the petitioner. Trial court has rejected this argument by observing that it is not conceivable that after passing a detailed order on a date when the counsel for the parties are present and then when the case is adjourned to a long date of 10.7.2014, then what was the order passed on 25.3.2014 would not be known to the petitioner/defendant/tenant or his counsel. The trial court also notes that the order dated 25.3.2014 was duly available on the website of the court and this aspect has been got checked from the court's staff at the time of passing of the impugned order. Consequently, trial court has held that the petitioner/defendant/tenant could not contend that his counsel did not know the order of deposit of rent.

(3.) Suits are filed in Delhi in civil courts where the rent is more than Rs. 3500/- per month and in such suits tenants contumaciously for some reason or the other in many cases want to deliberately delay the disposal of the suit. The present suit is one such suit. The issue raised as to the case as set up by the petitioner/defendant/tenant of his counsel not knowing the order dated 25.3.2014 is not correct and in this regard the trial court has rightly noted that the explanation put forth is clearly not believable.