PRITAM CHAND Vs. MANGA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Revision Petition against the order dated 15.3.2000 passed by the trial Court, directing the defendant-petitioners to deposit the rent within a period of 7 days from the date of the said order, failing which their defence shall be struck off under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC.

(2.) THE facts which are relevant for the decision of the present Revision Petition are that Manga Ram, etc.-plaintiffs had filed a suit on 4.8.1998 for possession by way of eviction against the defendants and also for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,26,000/- for use of occupation of the booth in question at Panchkula at the rate of Rs. 6000/- per month for the period from 7.11.1996 to 31.7.1998. During the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiffs filed an application dated 19.1.1999 under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC for striking off the defence of the defendants on account of non-payment of arrears at the rate of Rs. 6000/- per month w.e.f. 1.11.1996 upto date alongwith interest etc. The said application filed by the plaintiffs was contested by defendant No. 1 by filing written reply dated 17.5.1999, alleging therein that defendant No. 1 was not a tenant in the booth in question whereas M/s. Kamal Flour Mill of which Kamal Kumar is the proprietor, is the tenant in the premises in question. The learned trial Court after hearing both the sides and after perusing the record vide order dated 15.3.2000 found that as per the rent agreement dated 10th July, 1990 defendant No. 1 was the tenant on the premises in question at a monthly rent of Rs. 6000/-. Accordingly, the learned trial Court directed the defendants to deposit the arrears within a period of 7 days from the date of the order failing which their defence shall be struck off under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC. Aggrieved against this order of the trial Court dated 15.3.2000, the defendants filed the present revision petition in this Court. In the grounds of revision the date of the order vide which the petitioners were aggrieved was not mentioned, though in the opening sheet for the civil revision it was mentioned that the revision was being filed against the order dated 23.3.2000 vide which the defence had been struck off. Similarly, on the page of containing "Synopsis" it was mentioned that the impugned order was passed on 23.3.2000 vide which the defence had been struck off. The revision petition is dated 4.4.2000. Alongwith the revision petition certified copy of the order dated 15.3.2000 has been attached, being the impugned order, besides typed copy of the said order.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record carefully.