BALDEV Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF Pushpa Devi filed a suit for possession by way of eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. During the proceedings, trial court directed that defendant shall tender the rent in the court on 7th of every month. Defendant complied with this order and tendered the rent from 1st January, 2001 to August, 2006. He, however, defaulted in payment in the month of September, 2006. An application was moved by the plaintiff to strike of the defence of the defendant and for order of eviction. Defendant contested the application submitting that his counsel has not informed of the operative portion of the order. Thus, he had been unable to deposit rent for the month of September, 2006 within time. This plea was rejected by the trial court observing that had defendant not been aware of order dated 1.6.2006, he would not have tendered the rent in the month of August well within time. Thus, his plea was not genuine. Invoking order 5 Rule 15 CPC, it struck off the defence of the defendant and directed his eviction. Decree for recovery of arrears was also passed in favour of plaintiff. Defendant/tenant challenged the order passed by the trial court before the Additional District Judge, Nuh. The appeal was, however, dismissed. Aggrieved, he has filed second appeal before this court.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has mainly argued that for non-payment of rent trial court could have struck off his defence but could not have simultaneously ordered his eviction. He has relied upon judgment reported as Modula India vs. Kamakshya Singh Deo, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 162.

(3.) I find merit in the plea of the respondent. In judgment reported as Modula India's case (supra), the apex court was seized of a matter pertaining to West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 are not pari materia with East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. This apart, in said judgment defendant was only given limited right to cross-examine plaintiff's witnesses with a limited objective of pointing out falsity or weakness in plaintiff's case. Defendant was not granted any right beyond this. In a later judgment, however, i.e. Anandi Devi's case (supra), apex court has held as follows:-