RAJENDRA KUMAR VERMA Vs. PADMA JINDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Y. K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the revisionists and Sri Anoop Tripathi, Advocate for the caveator-respondents.

(2.) AS agreed between the parties, this revision is being heard and finally decided at this stage itself.

(3.) AFTER hearing the respective Counsel for the parties at length, I am of the view specially on the face of detailed reasoning given in paragraph 6 onwards in the affidavit filed in support of the stay application that the findings given by the Judge Small Causes Court regarding non deposit of the interest stands falsified on the face of tender annexed with the affidavit. The power to strike off defence remains in reserve to be availed in extreme case of deliberate or willful default with an intention to harass the landlord. The intention of the statute was not to put a weapon in the hands of the landlord to use it even in case of bona fide mistake or omission. The denial of an opportunity to the tenant to contest on merits is too harsh and cannot be used against him on flimsy grounds. In the circumstances, I set aside the impugned order dated 13-1-2006 passed by the Additional District Judge Court No. 2, Ghaziabad striking off the defense of the tenant. It is made clear that the tenant shall not make any default in future and deposit month to month rent alongwith interest in accordance with law and also participate in the proceeding without seeking undue adjournment. The Judge Small Causes Court is further directed to decide the Suit No. 13 of 2001 within a period of eight months from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before him. Petition allowed. .