VIJENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by Vijendra Kumar Jain, defendant/tenant, against the order dated 8-7-1987, passed by the 10th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut, in Suit No. 27/85, thereby allowing an application of Smt. Shanti Devi, plaintiff landlady for striking off the defence of the applicant under Order XV Rule 5 CPC. It appears that Smt. Shanti Devi filed the suit before the Judge, Small Causes Court, against the applicant for a decree of arrears of rent and ejectment from an accommodation on the ground that the applicant who was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month, was a defaulter for more than four months.

(2.) WHEN this revision had come up for admission, notice was issued to the opposite party and on 15-9-87 the learned Counsel for both the sides had agreed that the revision be disposed of finally. WHEN the matter came up today, both the learned Counsel stated that the lower court record need not be sent for as the relevant material is already available as annexures to the affidavits filed in this case and the time in deciding the interim matter may be the same as would be taken to dispose of this revision finally. Hence this Court proceeds to decide the revision finally.

(3.) THE main argument of Sri P. K. Jain on behalf of the applicant relying upon the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Chandra Jain v. Sri Gopal Agrawal, 1981 ARC 463, is that the word 'may' used in sub-Rule (1) empowers the court to exercise its discretion but on facts and circumstances existing on record it may not strike off the defence on considering the representation of the tenant. It was argued that after the said case was remanded by the Supreme Court for fresh consideration, the tenant again lost it in this Court. But the tenant's case was accepted by the Supreme Court when he went there for the second time, and the order striking off his defence was set aside, though on some terms vide the judgment in Vimal Chandra Jain v. Sri Gopal Agrawal, 1983 ARC 203. He has also relied upon the case of Navin Chandra Sharma v. Vlth Additional Sessions Judge, reported in 1983 ARC 50 for the argument that the initial contract of tenancy being illegal, no relief can be granted to the opposite party landlady finally.