BADRI DATT JOSHI Vs. CHANDAN SINGH GINWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present writ civil revision the defendant has challenged the order dated 27.11.1996 by which the defence of the defendant has been struck off. The plaintiff has filed a suit praying eviction of the defendant on the ground that the rent was Rs. 600.00 per month and the defendant has failed to pay the amount in accordance with the provisions of Order 15, Rue 5 CPC. The defence has been struck off on the ground as to whether defendant admits the rent to be due to him or not but has been claimed by the plaintiff. Order 15, Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:

(2.) The aforesaid provision provides that the tenant shall deposit the amount only what is admitted to be due. It is settled law that Order 15, Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure can not be used as a weapon to evict the tenant.

(3.) In view of the Division Bench of the High Court reported in 2003 (1) Allahabad Rent Cases 643, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs. Atar Singh , since the tenant has disputed the liability of payment of rent, no defence can be struck off. The observations are quoted below: