M/S MANGAT SINGH TRILOCHAN SINGH THR. MANGAT SINGH (D) THR. LRS. AND ORS. versus SATPAL

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 54 · Decided: 26-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

4 
(_ 
A 
MIS. MANGAT SINGH TRILOCHAN SINGH THR. 
MANGAT SINGH (D) THR. LRS. AND ORS. 
v. 
SATPAL 
B 
SEPTEMBER 26, 2003 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND D.M. DHARMADHlKARI, JJ.] 
Rent and Eviction : 
c 
Code of Civil Procedure, I 908-0rder XI~ Rule 5-Deldy in deposit 
of arrears of rent-Consequences of-Prayer by landlords for striking off 
defence of tenants on ground a/non-deposit of arrears of rent within the 
specified time-Trial Court rejecting the said prayer and allowing the 
tenants to deposit arrears of rent-High Coitrt reversing the judgment of 
D Trial Court in revision-:-Tenability of-Held, since the trial court had 
exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with law in refusing to strike off 
the defence of the tenants, High Court could not justifiably interfere with 
the same in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction-It is not obligatory for 
the Court in every case to strike off defence only because there is delay 
E 
in deposit of arrears of rent-Section I I 5-Revision-Jurisdiction of High 
Court. 
Words and Phrases- 'First hearing of suit' occurring in Rule 5 of 
Order XV CPC as applicable to Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh-
Meaning of 
F 
In a suit for eviction, Trial Court rejected the prayer of 
Respondent-landlords for striking off defence of appellant-tenants on 
the ground of non-deposit of arrears of rent within the time specified 
in Order XV Rule 5 CPC as applicable in Punjab, Haryana and 
G 
Chandigarh and allowed applications of appellant-tenants seeking 
permission to deposit the arrears of rent. High Court reversed the 
judgment of Trial Court. Hence the present appeals. 
On behalf of appellant-tenants, it was contended that the power 
of the Court to strike off defence, in the event of non-deposit of arrears 
( 
H of rent within the specified period, is discretionary and it is not 
54 
MANGAT SINGH TRILOCHAN SINGH v. SATPAL 
55 
compulsory for the court in every case to take such extreme step of A 
penalising the tenant; that only a date of appearance of the parties was 
intimated on the summons served by trial court on the tenants after 
the institution of suit for eviction against them and it was not a date 
fixed for hearing of the suit and as such the period specified for deposit 
of rent under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code could not be reckoned from B . 
that date and; that trial court having exercised its discretion by not 
striking off the defence of tenants and accepting the rent deposited, 
High Court in its revisional jurisdiction had no justification to interfere 
with the same. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. It is not obligatory for the Court in every case to 
strike off defence only because there is delay in deposit of the arrears 
of rent. The court has discretion in the matter and the power to strike 
c 
off the defence is to be exercised with due regard to the facts and D 
circumstances of each case. [59-D] 
1.2. The tenants had not withheld payment of rent arbitrarily. 
There was no lack of bonafides on their part. It is in these circumstances 
that the trial court refused to strike off the defence and on consideration 
of the representation of the tenants accepted the deposit of arrears of E 
rent. Since the trial court had exercised its jurisdiction lawfully, the 
High Court could not justifiably interfere with the same in exercise of 
its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code. [59-F, 60-H] 
1.3. The use of the expression 'first hearing' is not to mean 'the date 
fixed for return of summons or the returnable date which is the day of F 
appearance' before the court of the parties; but the day on which the 
court applies its mind to the case which ordinarily would be at the time 
when either the issue are determined or evidence taken. The arrears of 
rent were, therefore, duly deposited by the tenants within the specified 
period from the first effective 'date of hearing'. (60-A, D, 59-G] 
G 
Sham Lal (Dead) By Lrs. v. Alme Nand Jain Sabha (Regd.), Dal 
Bazar, [1987] 1 SCC 222, relied on. 
Bimal Chand Jain v. Sri Gopa!Agarwal, (1981) 3 SCC 486, referred 
to. 
H 
A 
56 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
Anandi Devi v. Om Prakash. 119871 Suppl. SCC 527, cited. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal Nos. 6605-
6606 of2002. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.2.2002 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in C.R. Nos. 863 and 864 of 2001. 
G.L. Sanghi V.C. Mahajan, Dhruv Mehta, Mohit Chaudhary, Ms. 
Shalini Gupta, S.K. Mehta, Dr. Meera
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.