Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. A perusal of the record reflects that the suit, after filing of written statement by the defendants, proceeded and statement of plaintiff (P.W.1) as well as defendant no.1 (D.W.1) was recorded and they were both subjected to cross- examination. A large number of documents including rent agreements, counter foils of the rent receipt book, tenancy termination notice, etc were filed by the plaintiff in support of his case. The defendants had produced an expert report to disclose that the signature on the counter foil of the rent receipt was not of the defendants. But before the statement of expert could be recorded, an application was moved by the plaintiff on 10.11.2014 to strike off the defence of the defendants, under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C., on account of non deposit of admitted monthly rent during the pendency of the suit with effect from 01.10.2012. The said application was moved by the plaintiff because, initially, a deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- was made, vide challan dated 18.09.2012, towards rent for the period 01.05.2010 to 30.09.2012 but, thereafter, no monthly deposit of admitted rent was made. Upon filing of application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC to strike off defence, vide challan dated 20.11.2014, Rs.48,600/- was deposited towards rent for the period October 2012 to December 2014 and, thereafter, vide challan dated 21.04.2015, Rs.10,800/- was deposited towards rent for the period January 2015 to June 2015. Thereafter, on 21.05.2015, a reply to the application to strike off defence was filed by the defendants claiming that rent up to June, 2015 stands deposited and that a total of Rs.2,59,400/- has been deposited. In the reply, no representation to condone the delay in making monthly deposit was made. The reply also did not disclose any mode of computation or calculation to demonstrate as to how the entire rent including monthly admitted rent, liable to be deposited under Order 15 rule 5 CPC, up to June, 2015, had been deposited.

6. The court below by its order dated 29.05.2015 struck off the defence of the defendants upon finding that on 08.09.2012 (should be read as 18.09.2012), the defendants had deposited a lump sum amount of Rs. 2 lacs towards rent payable from 01.05.2010 to 30.09.2012; thereafter, on 20.11.2014 they deposited Rs. 48,600/- towards rent payable from October, 2012 to December, 2014; and thereafter on 21.04.2015 they deposited Rs. 10,800/- towards rent payable for the period January, 2015 to June, 2015, accordingly, there was no timely monthly deposit during the course of the suit, therefore, in absence of any representation to condone the delay in making such deposits, the defence was liable to be struck off.

(b) That it is not necessary to make a representation for condoning the delay in making deposit, particularly, where, from the record, the court can satisfy itself that there is no default or that the amount already deposited was in excess of what was required to be deposited. Therefore the view of the court below that no representation was made for condoning the delay in making deposit of admitted monthly rent the defence was liable to be struck off, is unsustainable.

(c) That striking off defence is not mandatory and the court has discretion not to strike off defence in a given set of facts. It has been submitted that since the suit had proceeded to the final stages and was at the stage of recording defence evidence and, in fact, the statement of D.W.1 had already been recorded, there was no justification to strike off defence at such an advanced stage of the proceeding.

20. Per contra, Sri Pramod Jain, learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlord, has submitted that defence can be struck off at any stage of the proceeding because not only at the first date of hearing the amount due is required to be deposited but the monthly amount due is required to be deposited throughout the continuation of the suit on a monthly basis within a week from the date of its accrual, and in the event of default in making deposit, the court may strike off defence. Accordingly the defence can be struck off at any stage of the suit, even after leading of evidence. He submitted that in the instant case, admittedly, the monthly amount due was not deposited within the time provided and as there was no explanation/ representation to condone the delay, the order striking off defence cannot be faulted and since the court below has passed the judgment and decree after considering the plaintiff's evidence, which was tested by cross-examination, the finding returned by the court below on various issues which is based on appreciation of evidence and is not perverse, cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional powers. On the question of adjustment of deposit of Rs. 2 lacs, made on 18.09.2012, against liability to deposit monthly dues payable throughout the continuation of suit, it was contended that according to the own case of the defendants the deposit of Rs.2 lacs, made on 18.09.2012, was in respect of amount payable and due for the period starting from 01.05.2010 up to 30.09.2012, that is for 27 months, therefore the contention that there was excess deposit made, which could have been adjusted against short fall in subsequent monthly deposits, is misconceived. In the alternative, it was submitted that unless there had been a representation by the defendants that the deposit which they had made on 18.09.2012 was to be adjusted towards future rent payable at the admitted rate of rent of Rs. 1800/- per month, the court, on its own, could not have adjusted the deposit towards liability to make monthly deposits for use and occupation of the premises. It has been submitted by him that as the defendants admit that Rs. 4300/- per month was payable towards the maintenance charges in addition to Rs.1800/- per month payable towards rent, the entire amount of Rs.6100/- became payable for use and occupation of the premises on a monthly basis throughout the pendency of suit. Therefore, the deposit of Rs. 2 lacs even if it includes maintenance charges as claimed cannot be adjusted against liability to make monthly deposits. It has thus been submitted that seen from any angle, the defendants had been a defaulter in depositing the monthly amount due during the pendency of the suit and as there was no representation to condone the delay, the court below was well within its powers to strike off defence as has been done by the order dated 29.05.2015.