SAQIB KHAN Vs. RAVINDRA SURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises from the orders dated 8.8.2014, 30.9.2014 and 16.7.2014 passed in Civil Suit No.419-A/ 2014.

(2.) The facts, giving rise to filing of the petition, briefly stated, are that one Ranjit Shah filed a civil suit, namely, C.S. No.483-A/2011 against the petitioner and the respondent seeking the reliefs of possession and damages on the basis of title on the ground that the petitioner and the respondent are encroachers. Thereafter, the present respondent along with his brother filed Civil Suit No.822-A/2012 on 27.7.2012 against the aforesaid Ranjit Shah seeking the relief of specific performance of contract. Thereafter, aforesaid Ranjit Shah filed civil suit, namely, C.S. No.443-A/2014 against the petitioner as well as respondent and other persons for eviction on the grounds enumerated under Section 12 (1) (a), (b), (c), (e) and (f) of the Act. It is noteworthy that in the aforesaid civil suit, in paragraph 5 of the plaint, the respondent has been described as tenant whereas the petitioner has been shown to be a subtenant. Thereafter the respondent filed the suit, namely, 419-A/2014 against the petitioner for eviction on the ground enumerated under Section 12 (1) (a) of the Act.

(3.) The respondent filed an application under Section 13 (6) of the Act on the ground that the defendant has failed to tender the arrears of rent from March, 2013 to March, 2014. The aforesaid application was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 8.8.2014 and the petitioner was directed to deposit the rent, failing which his defence to the eviction proceeding would be struck out. However, the petitioner did not deposit the rent and, therefore, vide order dated 29.9.2014, the defence of the petitioner to the proceeding for eviction was struck out. The petitioner also filed an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was rejected by the trial Court by order dated 16.7.2014 on the ground that the application is premature as the petitioner has not filed the written statement. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court.