Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8735 (UTT)

Pratibha Devi v. Gaurav Jain

2026-02-18

Subhash Upadhyay

body2026
JUDGMENT : Subhash Upadhyay, J. This civil revision is directed against the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned Judge SCC/1 st Additional District Judge, Haridwar in SCC Suit No.06 of 2024, “Gaurav Jain & Anr. Vs. Smt. Partibha Devi & Ors.”, 2. The revisionists have assailed the aforesaid order by which the application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC of the respondents was allowed and the defense of the revisionists was struck off. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that, the respondents herein (plaintiffs in the suit) filed the suit under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the revisionists (respondents in the suit) seeking a relief of eviction, arrears of rent and damages. The respondents claimed that their property – The Hotel Grand Lajja was given on rent to the revisionists initially at the rent of Rs.6 lakh per month and 18% GST and the tenancy started from 07.10.2021 and the rent was to be paid on the 10 th day of every month. 4. As per the case of the respondents/plaintiffs, from October, 2023 the rent was to be enhanced and from the said date the rent payable was Rs.8 lakh per month and 18% GST. As per the respondents/plaintiffs, rent since September, 2023 was not paid and only 50% of the GST amount was paid since 31.08.2023 and as such the revisionist was defaulter. A suit for eviction, arrears of rent and damages was thus filed, which was registered as Suit No.6 of 2024. 5. The revisionists / respondents filed their written statement on 03.04.2025 and did not dispute the relationship of tenant-landlord, however, disputed the amount payable towards arrears of rent on various grounds. The application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC was considered and decided on 16.10.2025 striking off the defense of the revisionists / respondents against which the present revision has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that as per the case of the revisionists the rent from July, 2025 was only payable to the respondents. Though the rent of July, 2025 amounting to Rs.8 lakh was paid with some delay, however, the rent for the month of August and September, 2025 only could not be paid. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that as per the case of the revisionists the rent from July, 2025 was only payable to the respondents. Though the rent of July, 2025 amounting to Rs.8 lakh was paid with some delay, however, the rent for the month of August and September, 2025 only could not be paid. The reasons for the delay was bonafide as negotiations were being held between the parties for which he refers to the order-sheet to contend that as talks were going on between the parties as such the rent was not paid. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionists refers to the various judgments, namely, Asha Rani Gupta Vs. Vineet Kumar (2023) 20 SCC 273 , Mangat Singh Trilochan Singh Vs. Satpal (2003) 8 SCC 357 , Bimal Chand Jain Vs. Sri Gopal Agarwal (1981) 3 SCC 486 and Mukesh Verma and Anr. Vs. Sushant Misra ALL. High Court in Writ Petition No.1662 of 2018. On the basis of the said judgments, learned counsel for the revisionists contends that the word ‘may’ in Sub-rule (1) of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC merely vests power in the Court to strike off the defense and it is not oblige it to do so in every case of default. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents /plaintiffs contends that the revisionist is a willful defaulter as neither the arrears of rent nor the rent of Rs.8 lakh per month was deposited before the Trial Court. He further disputed that amount of Rs.60 lakh was spent by the revisionists on the rented property. 9. He further submits that contention of the revisionists that rent was not paid on monthly basis as talks were going on between the parties for amicable settlement is an afterthought as no such ground was ever taken by the revisionists before the Trial Court. He further submits that, as per Order 15 Rule 5 CPC, the rent is to be deposited per month and in case of any default representation can be filed showing bonafide for not depositing the said rent. He further submits that, as per Order 15 Rule 5 CPC, the rent is to be deposited per month and in case of any default representation can be filed showing bonafide for not depositing the said rent. He refers to the stand taken by the revisionists/respondents before the Trial Court wherein despite depositing the rent of Rs.8 lakh for the month of July, 2025 again the revisionists/respondents disputed the said rent and as such he submits that once the revisionists admitted in the written statement and the objection filed in response to the application to Order 15 Rule 5 CPC, the admitted rent to be Rs.8 lakh then the action of the revisionists in disputing the said admitted rent once again was a deliberate act of default without any justifiable reason. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Asha Rani Gupta Vs. Vineet Kumar ( 2023) 20 SCC 273 and contends that Order 15 Rule 5 CPC embodies the fundamental principle that there is no holidaying for a tenant in payment of rent or damages for use and occupation. 11. The question which falls for determination in the present revision is that as to whether learned Trial Court, on the basis of material available on record, was justified in striking off the defense of the revisionists and in holding that the approach of the revisionists in not depositing the due rent on monthly basis was an approach of defiance or volitional /elective non-performance. 12. There is no dispute between the parties on tenant- landlord relationship, however, the revisionist disputes the arrears of rent payable to the respondents and also contends that the entire property was not rented to him and he spent huge amount in construction which was adjusted towards the arrears of rent. 13. So far as the rent payable to the respondents/plaintiffs from October, 2023 @ Rs.8 lakh per month is concerned, the revisionists in their written statement filed on 03.04.2025 made the following statement in paragraph no.17 to 19, which reads as under: 14. Further, in reply to the application filed by the respondents under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC, the revisionists in their objections dated 26.05.2025 made the following averments in paragraph no.7, which reads as under: 15. Further, in reply to the application filed by the respondents under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC, the revisionists in their objections dated 26.05.2025 made the following averments in paragraph no.7, which reads as under: 15. Admittedly, no representation was submitted by the revisionists before the Trial Court, as provided under Rule 5 of Order 15 CPC, either within ten days of the first hearing or of the expiry of the week referred to in the Sub-section (1) as the case may be. Order 15 Rule 5 CPC reads as under: “5. Striking off defence for failure to deposit admitted rent.—(1) In any suit by a lessor for the eviction of a lessee after the determination of his lease and for the recovery from him of rent or compensation for use and occupation, the defendant shall, at or before the first hearing of the suit, deposit the entire amount admitted by him to be due together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent. per annum and whether or not he admits any amount to be due, he shall throughout the continuation of the suit regularly deposit the monthly amount due within a week from the date of its accrual, and in the event of any default in making the deposit of the entire amount admitted by him to be due or the monthly amount due as aforesaid, the Court may, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) strike off his defence. Explanation 1—The expression "first hearing" means the date for filing written statement for hearing mentioned in the summons or where more than one of such dates are mentioned, the last of the dates mentioned. Explanation 2—The expression "entire amount admitted by him to be due" means the entire gross amount, whether as rent or compensation for use and occupation, calculated at the admitted rate of rent for the admitted period of arrears after making no other deduction except the taxes, if any, paid to a local authority in respect of the building on lessor's account "[and the amount, if any, paid to the lessor acknowledged by the lessor in writing signed by him] and the amount, if any, deposited in any Court under section 30 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Explanation 3—(1) The expression "monthly amount due" means the amount due every month, whether as rent or compensation for use and occupation at the admitted rate of rent, after making no other deduction except the taxes, if any, paid to a local authority, in respect of the building on lessor's account. (2) Before making an order for striking off defence, the Court may consider any representation made by the defendant in that behalf provided such representation is made within 10 days of the first hearing or, of the expiry of the week referred to in sub-section (1), as the case may be. (3) The amount deposited under this rule may at any time be withdrawn by the plaintiff Provided that such withdrawal shall not have the effect of prejudicing any claim by the plaintiff disputing the correctness of the amount deposited: Provided further that if the amount deposited includes any sums claimed by the depositor to be deductible on any account, the Court may require the plaintiff to furnish the security for such sum before he is allowed to withdraw the same.” 16. The stand taken by the revisionists / respondents before the learned Trial Court is that as he is not in a possession of the entire rented accommodation as such rent of Rs.8 lakh was not payable to the respondents and the same cannot be deposited before the Court below. 17. Paragraph no.12 and 16 of the order under challenge wherein the said discussion has been made reads as under: 18. The learned Trial Court took cognizance of the stand taken by the revisionists in their written statement and the objection filed to the application Under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC and, on the basis of the aforesaid material, came to the conclusion that the revisionist, who had himself admitted rent to be Rs.8 lakh per month and who had, in fact, deposited once the said rent of Rs.8 lakh in the month of July belatedly before the Trial Court was unjustified in disputing the aforesaid monthly payable rent and the said approach of the revisionists was of elective non-performance. 19. The Court has also perused material available on record and the discretion exercised by the learned Trial Court in coming to the said conclusion cannot be faulted. 19. The Court has also perused material available on record and the discretion exercised by the learned Trial Court in coming to the said conclusion cannot be faulted. The Court has also perused the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Asha Rani Gupta ( supra ) in which it was held that in case of deliberate defiance or volitional / elective non- performance, the consequence of law remains inevitable, that the defence of such a defendant would be struck off. Paragarph nos. 38, 39, 40 and 46 of the aforesaid judgment are extracted hereunder: “38. Reverting to the provisions under consideration, it is noticed that while the first part of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 Order 15CPC requires deposit of the admitted due amount of rent together with interest, the second part thereof mandates that whether or not the tenant admits the amount to be due, he has to, throughout the continuation of the suit, regularly deposit monthly amount due within a week from the date of its accrual. Read as a whole, it is but clear that Order 15 Rule 5CPC embodies the fundamental principle that there is no holidaying for a tenant in payment of rent or damages for use and occupation, whether the lease is subsisting or it has been determined. The only basic requirement in the suit of the nature envisaged by Order 15 Rule 5CPC is the character of the defendant as being the lessee/tenant in the suit premises. Viewed from this angle, we are not inclined to accept the line of thought in some of the decisions of the High Court that in every case of denial of relationship of landlord and tenant, the defendant in suit for eviction and recovery of rent/damages could enjoy holidays as regards payment of rent. 39. For what has been discussed hereinabove, the decision of the High Court in Ladly Prasad [Ladly Prasad v. Ram Shah Billa, 1975 SCC OnLine All 294 : (1976) 2 ALR 8] does not require much dilation when it remains indisputable that it is not always obligatory on the court to strike off the defence. However, the said decision cannot be read to mean that despite default of the tenant in payment of rent, the defence has to be permitted irrespective of its baselessness. The decision in Kunwar Baldevji [Kunwar Baldevji v. Addl. However, the said decision cannot be read to mean that despite default of the tenant in payment of rent, the defence has to be permitted irrespective of its baselessness. The decision in Kunwar Baldevji [Kunwar Baldevji v. Addl. District Judge, Bulandshahar, 2003 SCC OnLine All 311 : (2003) 1 ARC 637 ] , again, would have no application to the facts of the present case. Herein, the respondent- defendant has not only omitted to deposit the rent on the first date of the hearing but, has also omitted to deposit the accrued rent during the pendency of the suit. 40. In a suit of the present nature, where the defendant otherwise has not denied his status as being the lessee, it was rather imperative for him to have scrupulously complied with the requirements of law and to have deposited the arrears of rent due together with interest on or before the first date of hearing and in any case, as per the second part of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 Order 15CPC, he was under the specific obligation to make regular deposit of the monthly amount due, whether he was admitting any such dues or not. 46. With respect, the said conclusion of the High Court could only be said to be an assumptive one, being not supported by any reason. In para 43, of course, the High Court observed with reference to the decisions of this Court that the discretionary power must be exercised with great circumspection but, such enunciation by this Court cannot be read to mean that whatever may be the fault and want of bona fide in the defendant/tenant, he would be readily given the so-called “indulgence” of not striking off defence. Such an approach is neither envisaged by the statutory provisions nor by the referred decisions. In fact, such an approach would simply render the relevant provisions of law rather nugatory. The expected circumspection would require the Court to be cautious of all the relevant facts and the material on record and not to strike off the defence as a matter of routine. However, when a case of the present nature is before the Court, disclosing deliberate defiance and volitional/elective non-performance, the consequence of law remains inevitable, that the defence of such a defendant would be struck off.” 20. However, when a case of the present nature is before the Court, disclosing deliberate defiance and volitional/elective non-performance, the consequence of law remains inevitable, that the defence of such a defendant would be struck off.” 20. In the present case, perusal of the written statement, objection to the application filed under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC and the stand of the revisionists before the Trial Court indicates that despite admitting the rent to be Rs.8 lakh per month and despite an admission on the part of the revisionists that rent of Rs.8 lakh was payable from July, 2025, the revisionists deliberately on its own volition failed to deposit rent on monthly basis. 21. This Court under the revisional jurisdiction can interfere in the order passed by the learned Trial Court, in case, the said findings are totally perverse or any order is passed without jurisdiction. In the present case, the learned Trial Court has given cogent reasons while exercising its discretionary power to struck off defense after going through the entire material available on record and after considering the facts of the case. 22. In view of the above discussion, this Court do not find any merit in the present revision and is not inclined to take any view different than the view taken by the learned Trial Court. Thus, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. 23. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.