Rachit Katyal vs. Suresh Kumar Taneja & Anr.

Held

The Court held that the Defendant was afforded sufficient opportunities to contest the Plaintiffs' suit. The Defendant's repeated defaults, starting with the failure to file a Written Statement within the statutory period and extending to repeated non-appearances for cross-examination, rendered his contention of not being given a fair opportunity untenable. The Court also found the Defendant's argument regarding the rent increment to be without substance. The Plaintiffs had proved their case by producing the lease deed. Although the lease deed provided for a yearly rent increase of 10%, the Plaintiffs did not claim such an increase for the second year, and only claimed the stipulated 10% escalation for the third year, which was not over and above what was agreed. Therefore, no ground was made out to interfere with the Trial Court's judgment and decree.

Facts

The appellant (Defendant) was inducted as a tenant under a Lease Agreement dated 31.05.2019. The respondents (Plaintiffs) filed a commercial suit seeking recovery of Rs. 5,51,000/- towards alleged arrears of rent. The suit was decreed by the Additional District Judge, granting the sum of Rs. 5,51,000/-, simple interest at 6% per annum, and costs. The Defendant vacated the premises on 06.02.2022. The Defendant failed to file his Written Statement within the statutory period of 120 days, leading to his defence being struck off, though he was permitted to participate. The Defendant repeatedly defaulted in appearing for cross-examination of Plaintiff No. 1 (PW-4), despite opportunities and imposition of costs. The High Court is hearing an appeal against the Trial Court's judgment and decree.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Defendant was afforded a fair opportunity to contest the Plaintiffs' suit, considering his defence was struck off and he repeatedly failed to appear for cross-examination, thereby violating principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the Plaintiffs proved their case on merits, particularly concerning the calculation of rent, including the stipulated 10% escalation for the third year of tenancy, as required by law? Contentions of the Appellant (Defendant): The Defendant argued that he was not afforded a fair opportunity to contest the case and that the suit should not have been decreed solely due to his failure to file a Written Statement within the prescribed period. He contended that the Plaintiffs were required to prove their case on merits. The Defendant also raised issues regarding the rent increment calculation. Contentions of the Respondents (Plaintiffs): The Plaintiffs asserted that they were entitled to the claimed arrears of rent, including the 10% escalation for the third year of tenancy. They contended that the Defendant was given sufficient opportunities to participate in the proceedings and that his defaults led to the closure of his right to cross-examine.