Sh. Vijay Kumar Kakkar v. Sh. Shiv Narayan Yadav

1. The challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order of the trial court dated 10.7.2014 by which the trial court has struck off the defence of the petitioner/defendant/tenant for non-compliance of the order for deposit of pendente lite rent which was passed on 25.3.2014.

2. The only ground which was urged by the petitioner/defendant/tenant for non-compliance was that the order dated 25.3.2014 was not known by the counsel for the petitioner. Trial court has rejected this argument by observing that it is not conceivable that after 2014:DHC:3985 passing a detailed order on a date when the counsel for the parties are present and then when the case is adjourned to a long date of 10.7.2014, then what was the order passed on 25.3.2014 would not be known to the petitioner/defendant/tenant or his counsel. The trial court also notes that the order dated 25.3.2014 was duly available on the website of the court and this aspect has been got checked from the court’s staff at the time of passing of the impugned order. Consequently, trial court has held that the petitioner/defendant/tenant could not contend that his counsel did not know the order of deposit of rent.

3. Suits are filed in Delhi in civil courts where the rent is more than Rs. 3500/- per month and in such suits tenants contumaciously for some reason or the other in many cases want to deliberately delay the disposal of the suit. The present suit is one such suit. The issue raised as to the case as set up by the petitioner/defendant/tenant of his counsel not knowing the order dated 25.3.2014 is not correct and in this regard the trial court has rightly noted that the explanation put forth is clearly not believable.

4. Counsel for the petitioner argued before this Court that petitioner will now immediately deposit the entire amount in terms of the order dated 25.3.2014, however, I am not agreeable in the facts of the present case which is a case between the landlord and tenant for eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the tenanted premises where the rent stated by the landlord is more than Rs.3500/- inasmuch as if the petitioner was sincere enough, petitioner/defendant/tenant instead of making an offer to this Court, should have first deposited the amount before the trial court immediately after passing of the impugned order and then sought extension of time for making the deposit by seeking recall of the order dated 10.7.2014, but the same has not been done and instead after filing of this petition offer is made now to deposit the amount in terms of the order dated 25.3.2014. I may note that though the impugned order records that petitioner/defendant/tenant was ready to deposit the amount, however, it is noted that till date the amount to be deposited pursuant to the order dated 25.3.2014 has however not been deposited before the trial court or this Court alongwith the petition. Petitioner thus was trying to take a chance to set aside the impugned order without first actually complying with the order of deposit dated 25.3.2014.

5. I may note that in spite of the order striking off the defence of the petitioner/defendant/tenant, respondent/plaintiff/landlord will still be bound to lead evidence to prove his case and the witnesses of the respondent/plaintiff/landlord can always be cross-examined by the petitioner/defendant/tenant.

6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this petition, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

AUGUST 20, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib