ASHOK BISWAL Vs. RAMESH ANEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the defendant in the suit before the trial court and against the order dated 18th September, 2009 striking off the defence of the petitioner/defendant to the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff.

(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff had instituted the suit for ejectment of the petitioner/defendant from immovable property claiming that the petitioner/defendant was a tenant under the respondent/plaintiff at a rent in excess of Rs 3,500/- per month; that the tenancy of the petitioner/defendant has been terminated and as such the respondent/plaintiff has become entitled to eject the petitioner/defendant; the relief of recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits was also claimed in the suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 10 of the CPC for directing the petitioner/defendant to pay the admitted amounts. The said application was allowed on 22nd May, 2009 and the petitioner/defendant was directed to pay the arrears and make future payment at the rates directed and within the time fixed by the court. However, the petitioner/defendant failed to make the said payment and on request of the respondent/plaintiff, the trial court finding the order to have not been complied with, struck off the defence of the petitioner/defendant. Aggrieved therefrom this petition was preferred.

(3.) THIS court issued notice for a short date to the respondent/plaintiff, being prima facie of the opinion that the defence cannot be struck off upon non compliance in each case and also in the light of the newly inserted order 15a in the CPC as applicable to Delhi.