Pratibha Devi vs. Gaurav Jain

Facts

The revisionists, Pratibha Devi and Others, are challenging an order dated 16.10.2025 by the Additional District Judge, Haridwar, which struck off their defense in a suit filed by Gaurav Jain and Another. The suit, filed under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, sought eviction, arrears of rent, and damages. The respondents claimed the property, 'The Hotel Grand Lajja,' was leased to the revisionists at ₹6 lakh per month initially, with an increase to ₹8 lakh per month plus 18% GST from October 2023. The respondents alleged non-payment of rent since September 2023 and partial payment of GST since August 2023. The revisionists filed a written statement admitting the landlord-tenant relationship but disputing the rent arrears. An application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC by the respondents led to the defense being struck off.

Held

The Court held that the revisionists were not justified in striking off their defense. The revisionists, in their written statement and objections, admitted the rent to be ₹8 lakh per month and acknowledged that this rent was payable from July 2025. Despite this admission, the revisionists deliberately failed to deposit the rent on a monthly basis. The Court found that the Trial Court had exercised its discretionary power to strike off the defense after considering all available material and the facts of the case, providing cogent reasons. The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Asha Rani Gupta (supra), which states that in cases of deliberate defiance or volitional/elective non-performance, the consequence of striking off the defense is inevitable. The High Court, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, found no perversity or lack of jurisdiction in the Trial Court's order. Therefore, the revision was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Trial Court was justified in striking off the defense of the revisionists based on the material on record, considering their approach to depositing due rent on a monthly basis as defiance or volitional non-performance, pursuant to Order 15 Rule 5 CPC? Petitioner's arguments: The revisionists contended that the word 'may' in Order 15 Rule 5(1) CPC grants discretion to the court, making striking off the defense not obligatory in every case of default. They argued that the rent for July 2025 was paid with some delay, and the non-payment for August and September 2025 was due to bonafide negotiations between the parties. They relied on judgments like Asha Rani Gupta Vs. Vineet Kumar, Mangat Singh Trilochan Singh Vs. Satpal, Bimal Chand Jain Vs. Sri Gopal Agarwal, and Mukesh Verma and Anr. Vs. Sushant Misra. Respondent's arguments: The respondents argued that the revisionists were willful defaulters, having not deposited the arrears of rent or the monthly rent of ₹8 lakh before the Trial Court. They asserted that the claim of rent non-payment due to settlement talks was an afterthought, not raised before the Trial Court. They emphasized that Order 15 Rule 5 CPC requires monthly deposits, and representations for non-deposit must show bonafide. They cited Asha Rani Gupta Vs. Vineet Kumar, arguing that Order 15 Rule 5 CPC embodies the principle that tenants cannot have holidays from paying rent or damages.