- The Supreme Court has stated that a defendant cannot enjoy the property during the pendency of the suit without depositing the amount of rent/damages by simply denying the landlord-tenant/lessor-lessee relationship.
- The Court was deciding whether Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure applied in this case.
- According to this provision, the defendant's defence in an eviction suit can be struck off if the rent is not deposited on time.
- According to the court, Order XV 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, whether the lease is subsisting or it has been determined."
- "The only basic requirement in a suit of the nature contemplated by Order XV Rule 5 CPC is the defendant's character as the lessee/tenant in the suit premises," the Court added.
- In the current case, the plaintiff filed a suit in the Trial Court, claiming ownership of a shop after purchasing the registered sale deed from the previous owner.
- She also stated in the suit that the defendant was a tenant in the shop and was a chronic late payer of rent and taxes.
- Denying the landlord-tenant relationship, the defendant claimed in his written statement that the alleged sale deed was illegal and void.
- Denying the landlord-tenant relationship, the defendant claimed in his written statement that the alleged sale deed was illegal and void.
- The defendant objected to the application on the grounds that the provisions invoked were only applicable in cases where the defendant accepted the plaintiff as his landlord.
- Because the ADJ upheld the single judge's decision, the defendant petitioned the High Court. While granting the defendant's application, the High Court reversed the orders at issue and ordered the defendant to deposit the arrears of rent plus interest within one month.
- Using the rule established in Bimal Chand Jain v. Sri Gopal Agarwal and Manik Lal Majumdar and Ors. v. Gouranga Chandra Dey, the respondent's counsel contended that because he had taken a specific plea regarding the non-existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, he was not required to deposit any rent under Order XV Rule 5 CPC.
- The bench rejected the High Court's view, saying, "With respect, the said conclusion of the High Court could only be said to be an assumptive one, being unsupported by any reason."
- The High Court observed that the discretionary power must be exercised with great caution; however, such enunciation by this Court cannot be read to mean that, whatever the fault and lack of bonafide in the defendant/tenant, he would be readily given the so-called 'indulgence' of not striking off defence.
"Loved reading this piece by Twinkle Madaan?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
