Punjab-Haryana High Court
International Institute Of Neuro ... vs Sahibjit Singh Sandhu And Others on 17 December, 2010
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision : 17.12.2010
C.R.No.2725 of 2007
International Institute of Neuro Sciences & Oncology Ltd.
...Petitioner
Versus
Sahibjit Singh Sandhu and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Present : Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. R.V.S.Chugh, Advocate, for the respondents.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)
Challenge in the present revision petition is to an order passed by the learned trial Court on 07.04.2007, whereby the defence of the defendant-petitioner was struck off for not depositing the rent in terms of Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiff-respondents have filed a suit for eviction, wherein the plaintiffs filed an application for directing the defendant to deposit rent. The Court passed an order on 12.03.2003 directing the defendant-petitioner to deposit rent by 7th of each month. The plaintiff filed an application for striking off the evidence of the defendant for the reason that it has failed to deposit the monthly rent, which led to passing of the impugned order.
It is pointed out that the defendants have paid the entire arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.1,95,000/- after deduction of tax at source. It is averred by the plaintiffs that a sum of Rs.4,58,272/- was the amount of rent, C.R.No.2725 of 2007 2 which was to be deposited, but the defendants have paid only a sum of Rs.4,05,187/- and there is default in paying Rs.53,085/-, thus, the evidence of the defendant-petitioner has been rightly struck off.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that such amount was deposited on 13.03.2007 i.e. before the order of striking off the defence was passed by the learned trial Court. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said amount could not be deposited within the time in view of the notices issued by the Income Tax Department regarding non-payment of tax, as undertaken by the plaintiff.
Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has deposited the complete arrears of rent as demanded by the plaintiffs before the order was passed, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned trial Court striking off the defence suffers from patent illegality or irregularity. Once the petitioner has deposited over Rs.4 lacs, the intention of the petitioner is clear and categorical that they have intention to pay the amount of arrears of rent. Some dispute regarding the calculations of arrears cannot be a ground for striking off the defence of the petitioner, more so when it arises out of the statement of the counsel for the plaintiff to deposit tax with Income Tax Department on the amount of rent, but was not paid.
In view of the above, the present revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned trial Court on 07.04.2007 is set aside.
17.12.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE