Civil Revision No. 531 of 2009
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 531 of 2009
Date of decision: 28.08.2009
Gurbachan Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Mani Ram Jhorar and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present: - Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Godara, Advocate,
for respondents No. 1 and 2.
*****
VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)
This revision petition is directed against the order dated
24.11.2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa,
on an application moved under Order 15 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction,
restraining the defendant/respondents from dispossessing the petitioner,
except with due process of law. The petitioner claimed himself to be the
tenant in the property.
The suit was contested. The defendant/respondents moved
application under Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for
striking off the defence of the petitioner. It was pleaded that petitioner
Civil Revision No. 531 of 2009
-2-
had failed to pay the admitted rent and further failed to pay the rent
regularly.
The learned trial Court held that, provisions of Order 15 Rule
5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, could not be applied to the facts of the
case. The defence of the plaintiff/petitioner could not be ordered to be
struck off, as the suit was not by lessor against the lessee for eviction.
The learned trial Court, by exercising powers under Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure issued directions to the petitioner to
clear the arrears of rent, and pay future rent by 7th of each month.
This equitable order is challenged by the petitioner in this
Court, by invoking jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his stand, that
the impugned order cannot be sustained, as under Order 15 Rule 5 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, it is only in a suit for eviction, that non-
payment of admitted rent or future rent entailes the penalty of striking of
defence and eviction.
There is no reason to consider, the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner, as the learned trial Court itself held that
provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not
applicable. In order to settle equities between the parties, and in view of
the stand taken by the petitioner, that he was tenant of the property in
dispute, the learned Court directed the petitioner to pay admitted rent
and also the future rent.
It cannot be disputed, that the right of tenancy can continue,
subject to fulfilling the terms of tenancy, basic being payment of rent
Civil Revision No. 531 of 2009
-3-
regularly.
The learned Court has passed equitable order in exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No
ground is made out for interference by this Court, in exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
No merit.
Dismissed.
(Vinod K. Sharma)
Judge
August 28, 2009
R.S.