RAM NATH Vs. SOM NATH MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Opposite party landlords brought a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and mesne profit against the revisionist defendant. The trial court has struck off the defence of the revisionist-defendant by its order dated 15-9-1984 under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. as enforced in Utter Pradesh. That provision runs as follows :

(2.) The learned counsel for the opposite party relied upon Jitendra Vs. Ist Addl. District Judge, 1981 A.R.C. 445 . a single Judge pronouncement laying down that representation, if filed beyond the prescribed time, should not be entertained and the court has no option but to reject the defence. It would be found that as per order 15 Rule 5 of Explanation 3 in sub-rule (2) it has been provided that the court may consider representation of the defendant considering the delay, it is made within 10 days of the date of first hearing, namely, the date when the written statement is filed. It would appear that the suit itself was instituted in Feb., 1984, and the service was effected upon the defendant and written statement was filed on 7-3-1984 and about this there is no dispute. The representation itself was filed on 15-9-1984. The representation, thus, was undoubtedly belated, but I have to bear in mind the principles laid down in a number of pronouncement in this connection. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist are Vimal Chand Jain Vs. Gopal Agrawal, 1981 A.L.J. 908 . Sudesh Kumar Vs. Nargapai and others, 1984 A.R.C. 242 . and Pooran Chand Gupta Vs. Second Addl. District Judge Agra, 1983 A.R.C. 817 . The gist and ratio of these pronouncements are that the court should exercise its mind, must consider the matter of bona fides, should not reject the tenant's plea on technical grounds, must consider the materials on record, etc. and in the Supreme Court case of Vimal Chand Jain (supra) it has been further observed that notwithstanding want of any representation the court should exercise discretion considering every fact and circumstances.

(3.) The matter is, therefore, to be approached in the background and context of the broad principles and guidance contained in the aforesaid pronouncements and while exercising discretion mind has to be exercised and materials on record are to be taken into consideration. But I may hasten to add that for either side technicalities should not prevail as such if the matter can be disposed of by this Court in revision, unnecessary delay should not be caused.