JOGINDER SINGH Vs. KARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 15.2.2001 of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur whereby he allowed the plaintiff's application for striking off the defence of the defendant under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC as amended on 10/5/1991.

(2.) Facts :-Plaintiff Karnail Singh son of Dalip Singh resident of village Allowal, tehsil and District Hoshiarpur filed suit against Joginder Singh son of Gurdev Singh for possession of shop situated in the area of village Pajjodeota. tehsil and district Hoshiarpur and also for the recovery of Rs. 11,000/- as arrears of rent/compensation for use and occupation of the shop for the period 1/7/1995 to 30/4/1997, on the allegations, that the plaintiff purchased the shop from its previous owner Shri Sardar Singh son of Suchet Singh through his attorney Sukhjeet Singh vide sale deed dated 23/6/1995. Defendant was tenant of the shop under Sardara Singh. Defendant became tenant of the plaintiff by operation of law. Defendant admitted in the civil suit for permanent injunction that he is tenant of the plaintiff. Rs. 500.00 was the monthly rent of the shop which was payable in advance since 30-3- 1993. Defendant has not paid rent for the shop since 1.7.1995 to 30.4.1997. He was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 11.000/- as arrears of rent/compensation for use and occupation of the shop from 1.7.1995 to 30.4.1997. He filed this suit after serving him with legal notice dated 15.4.1997 terminating his tenancy. Defendant contested the suit urging that since the inception of tenancy, the rent was Rs. 180/- per month. After the plaintiff had purchased the shop, the defendant asked him to receive rent @ Rs.180/- per month from him but the plaintiff asked him to pay him rent @ Rs. 500/- per month. When.the plaintiff started threatening him with forcible dispossession of the shop and also disconnected the electric connection installed in the shop, he filed suit for permanent injunction in which stay was granted to him. He was always ready and willing to pay rent @ 180/- per month to the plaintiff which the plaintiff refused to accept.

(3.) Plaintiff made an application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC as amended on 10.5.1991 for striking off the defence of the defendant urging that the defendant's defence be struck off as he has not deposited the admitted rent which is the mandatory requirement of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC. Defendant's defence was struck off vide order dated 8.1.1999 of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur as he had failed to deposit the admitted rent which is the mandatory requirement ot Order 15 Rule 5 CPC. Defendant went in revision against this order which was setaside by Hon'ble R.L. Anand, J. vide order dated 8.11.2000 in civil revision No. 261 of 1999. It was ordered while disposing of CR No. 261 of 1999 that the defendant shall pay rent @ Rs. 180/- per month including arrears. if any, and continue to pay Rs. 180/- per month to the plaintiff which amount rnay be accepted by the plaintiff without prejudice to his rights in the suit. It was also ordered that defendant shall furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of trial court respecting the amount represented by the difference of the rent claimed and the rent admitted. In other words he was called upon to furnish bank guarantee for the amount that accumulated after 1.7.1995 @ Rs. 320/- per month. It was also ordered that if the bank guarantee was not furnished or if rent @ Rs. 180/- was not paid within one month of 8.11.2000, this CR No. 261 of 1999 shall be deemed to have been dismissed for all intents and purposes. It was also mentioned that acceptance of the amount shall not prejudice the case of the plaintiff on merits. It was also mentioned that the defendant shall be given credit of the amount of Rs. 9210/- paid by him to the plaintiff in the High Court.