Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mandir Balak Ram Ram Lal Trust vs Mohan Lal on 29 September, 2010
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
C. R. No. 6320 of 2010 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : C. R. No. 6320 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision : September 29, 2010
Mandir Balak Ram Ram Lal Trust
and another .... Petitioners
Vs.
Mohan Lal .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
C. M. No. 25049-C-II of 2010 :
Allowed as prayed for. C. M. No. 25050-C-II of 2010 :
Allowed as prayed for.
Main Case :
Plaintiffs have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 08.05.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, thereby dismissing plaintiffs' application Annexure P-4 filed under Order 15 C. R. No. 6320 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short - CPC).
Petitioners have filed suit against defendant-respondent Mohan Lal Kairpal alleging that respondent is licensee under the petitioners in the disputed premises. The petitioners have sought mandatory injunction directing the respondent to stop using the disputed shop and to put the petitioners in possession thereof.
Defendant-respondent has claimed that he is tenant in the disputed shop. Petitioners moved application Annexure P-4 under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC for striking off the defence of the defendant-respondent for not having paid the admitted arrears of license fee on the first date of hearing. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court by impugned order Annexure P-5. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have preferred the instant revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.
Order 15 Rule 5 CPC, as introduced by amendment by this Court, provides that in any suit by a lessor for eviction of a lessee after termination of lease and for recovery of rent or compensation for use and occupation, the defendant shall, on or before the first hearing of the suit, deposit the entire amount admitted by him to be due together with interest thereon @ 9% per annum and shall, during the pendency of the suit, regularly deposit the monthly amount due and in the event of default, the C. R. No. 6320 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Court may strike off the defence. In the instant case, however, the plaintiffs have not filed the instant suit on the plea that they were lessors and defendant-respondent was lessee and the lease has been terminated. On the other hand, petitioners filed the suit alleging the respondent to be licensee in the disputed premises under the petitioners. However, Order 15 Rule 5 CPC applies to a suit for eviction filed by the landlord against the tenant. In this case, petitioners do not claim the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the suit has not been filed for eviction. On the contrary, the suit is for mandatory injunction directing the alleged licensee to hand over possession of the premises to the petitioners. On the contrary, the defendant-respondent has pleaded himself to be tenant in the disputed shop, but the plaintiff-petitioners have repudiated the said claim of defendant-respondent. Having done so, the petitioners cannot claim benefit of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error and application Annexure P-4 moved by the petitioners has been rightly dismissed by the trial court. There is no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
September 29, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE