NAVNEET KAUR SETHI Vs. PAYAL JAGGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by way of instant revision petition is impugning the order dtd. 2/5/2022 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Gurugram vide which the application filed by the respondent/plaintiffs under Order 15 Rule 5 of the CPC for striking off their defence on account of non-payment of rent was allowed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order deserves to be set aside being contrary to the settled law. He submits that the trial Court erred in ignoring the fact that the petitioner had already paid Rs.15.00 lakhs as security at the time of commencement of the tenancy, to the respondents/plaintiffs on the condition that the aforementioned amount would either be adjusted towards rent in future or would be returned back at the time of termination of the tenancy. Learned counsel submits that in view of the aforementioned conditions, there was no occasion for the petitioner to pay any rent to the respondents/plaintiffs as Rs.15.00 lakhs already stood paid to the respondents/plaintiffs. He further submits that the petitioner had been regularly paying the rent to the respondents which she would prove during trial by way of evidence. Learned counsel still further contends that the lease agreement dtd. 15/3/2019 being an unregistered document was inadmissible in evidence and thus liable to be impounded under the Stamps Act. A prayer was, therefore, made to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence for just and proper decision of the case.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel and perused the material on record.