KARM ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. M S ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by Karm Engineering Works, hereinafter described as the petitioner, directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, dated 15-5-1998. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned trial Court in exercise of its powers under Order 15, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") directed the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent within three months failing which the defence of the petitioner would be deemed to have been struck-off.

(2.) The relevant facts are that respondent M/s. M. S. Enterprises had filed a suit for ejectment against the petitioner with respect to the property in dispute. It has been alleged that the property in question was let to the petitioner. Initially the rent was Rs. 10630/- per month which was increased to Rs. 20661/- per month. It was further assertd that though petitioner is in arrears of rent but the civil suit is being filed for ejectment of the petitioner only reserving the right to file a suit for recovery. The suit as such was being contested and in the written statement filed, it was pointed out that it is obligatory on the part of the respondent firstly to terminate the tenancy. It was further the case of the petitioner that it had set up construction of the shed and entitled to the cost of this construction. As regards the claim for the recovery of the arrears of rent, petitioner's plea was that such a right cannot be reserved and under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code, a suit for recovery would be barred.

(3.) During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed by the respondent for striking-off the defence of the petitioner. It was alleged that the rent is Rs. 20661.75 per month. It is due from October, 1992 onwards. The petitioner has not deposited the said amount and, therefore the defence of the petitioner should be struck-off. The said application had been contested and in the reply filed it was alleged that in the plaint itself only possession has been claimed and no arrears of rent and, therefore, Order 15, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not come into play. It was further contended that the civil suit is not maintainable because of the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.