ASHOK KUMAR AND ANR. Vs. ANIL KUMAR MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against the order of the VII Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, dated 23-3-1990 accepting the application moved by the plaintiff-opposite parties for striking off the defence of the defendant under Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C. on the ground that there has been no compliance of the aforesaid provision after 6-4-1988.

(2.) At the admission stage the contesting opposite parties put in appearance and have been represented before me by Sri P.K. Jain. Advocate, counsel for both the parties have made a joint statement that the revision itself may be finally disposed of at the admission stage. In these circumstances, the revision is being finally disposed of.

(3.) The only argument which has been raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant in this case is that the Court below has account with material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction while not considering the adjustment of Rs. 45,000 in compliance of the provisions of the Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C. The precise argument is that the amount of Rs. 45,000 had been spent by the defendant towards repairs after seeking permission from the plaintiffs and the defendant was entitled to adjustment of the aforesaid amount towards rent and thus he was not liable to deposit any monthly rent after 6-4-1988. Learned Counsel, appearing for the contesting opposite parties, has, however, urged that the defendant has not produced any evidence to show that there was a consent of the plaintiff- landlord for spending the amount of Rs. 45,000 and the plea taken by the defendant was not a bona fide plea and such adjustment cannot be made and contemplated by the Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C.