ISHWAR CHAND SURESH KUMAR Vs. SUNITA GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant has approached this Court by filing the present petition challenging the order dated 8.9.2007, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narwana in an application filed under Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the CPC'), whereby the defence of the petitioner-defendant was struck off.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for possession and penalty for use and occupation of the shop in question against the petitioner-defendant with the plea that the respondent was the owner of the shop in question which was rented out to the petitioner on 1.6.2001 at a half yearly rent of Rs. 20,000/-. It was further pleaded therein that a notice for termination of tenancy had been sent to the petitioner and the rent was also due from 1.12.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a cheque of Rs. 20,000/- towards rent payable upto 30.5.2002. The suit was filed on 6.6.2002 with the plea that the respondent was entitled to Rs. 40,000/- as rent and penalty for use and occupation for six months from 1.6.2002 and also the possession of the suit property.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the shop in question was taken on rent by him at Rs. 20,000/- per annum and not at Rs. 20,000/- for six months. The provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 PC provide for payment of admitted rent and in the present case, the admitted rent was already paid by him. He further submitted that otherwise also, the exercise of power under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC is discretionary. The suit filed against the petitioner should not go uncontested by striking off his defence. The petitioner, in fact, was always ready and willing to pay rent even for the period subsequent thereto, but the respondent disputing the rate of rent never accepted the same. During the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner had already paid the admitted rent for the period from 1.6.2002 till date. Under these circumstances, the delay, if any, in tendering the rent be condoned and the impugned order be set aside. Reliance was placed upon M/s Mangat Singh Trilochan Singh Thr. Mangat Singh (D) thr. Lrs. and others v. Satpal, 2004(2) RCR(Civil) 1 : 2003(2) RCR(Rent) 567 : 2004(2) PLR 225 and Govind Singh and others v. M/s Mynah International Ltd., 2006(2) RCR(Civil) 9 : 2006(1) RCR(Rent) 216 (P&H).