ABLINDER CHAWLA Vs. R K GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been directed against the order of Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh, dated 15. 12. 1992 dismissing the application of the petitioner which was filed under Order 15 Rule 5 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure for striking off the defence of the defendant-respondent At the very outset it is necessary to reproduce the very provision of Order 15 Rule 5 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure which has been incorporated by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide notification dated 13th May, 1991 and under which the application was filed by the landlord; "5. Striking off defence for failure to deposit admitted rent :

(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment of defendant-respondent from house No. 212, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh and for recovery of Rs. 29,700/- alongwith interest. The suit was contested by the defendant-respondent denying the relationship of landlord and tenant. The version of the defendant-respondent in the written statement is that the father-in-law of the plaintiff was looking after the house in question and the same was rented out by him to Rakesh Kumar Gupta, the brother of the defendant-respondent, who surrendered the possession in favour of father-in-law of the plaintiff on 11. 9. 1990 (date is corrected after seeing the plaint ). It has further been averred that at that time the father-in-law of the plaintiff received a sum of Rs. 60,000/-from the defendant-respondent and allowed him to use the house for the purpose of residence till the repayment of that amount.

(3.) I have given deep thought to the argument and am of the firm view that the same has got a lot of merit. From perusal of the written statement two facts stand established. In the first instance, the rate of rent is not disputed and secondly the possession of the house with the defendant is an established fact. The defendant-respondent has not stated that the father-in-law of the plaintiff or somebody else is the owner of the demised premises. It is not stated in the written statement that as to in which capacity the father-in-law of the petitioner has given the house in question to the defendant-respondent. In view thereof, the present seems to be a case of evasive replies by the defendant-respondent and this Court cannot decline the application of the petitioner which is filed under the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, simply because the relationship of the landlord and tenant has been denied, the precise question which arises in the present case is whether a Court of law should stay its hand and would stand restrained to grant any relief to the landlord in the direction of payment of rent, the moment the tenant or the person in occupation of the premises denied the relationship of landlord and tenant.