JUDGMENT
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. Mr. N.K. Sharma is the sole proprietor of M/s Tarun Products. This concern took Shed No. A-16/8, DLF, Industrial Estate No. 1, Mathura Road, Faridabad, on lease from Mrs. Kulwant Kaur. The said Mr. Sharma also took loan from the Haryana Financial Corporation. It appears that lease rights in the shed were mortgaged at the time of the sanction of the loan. On default in repayment of the loan, the possession of the premises was taken over by the Haryana Financial Corporation under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. Ever since the taking over of the possession in the year 1988, the rent of the premises was not paid to Mrs. Kulwant Kaur. It appears that she filed a petition for eviction in the court of Rent Controller, Faridabad. In those proceedings. M/S Tarun Products, Mr. N.K. Sharma and the Haryana Financial Corporation were impleaded as respondents. Each of the respondents denied its liability to pay the arrears of rent as also to hand over possession. The petition was dismissed on March 16, 1992.
2. It appears that sensing the fate of the petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, Mrs. Kulwant Kaur filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 49548/- against the three respondents. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 15 rule 5 for striking off the defence of the defendants was filed on the ground that they had failed to pay the money due to the lessor. This application was allowed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated November 16, 1992. Aggrieved by the order, the Haryana Financial Corporation has approached this Court through the present revision petition.
3. Mr. Adarsh Jain, counsel for the petitioner contends that in the suit for recovery of money by the lessor, the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 could not have been invoked. Thus, the trial court had erred in striking off the defence of the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Harpawan Kumar, counsel for Mrs. Kulwant Kaur, has submitted that the present revision petition has been filed under Section 15(5) of the Rent Act, it is not maintainable. Thus, it should be dismissed on this short ground alone.
5. Shorn of all technicalities, the admitted position is that the poor landlady had let out the shed to M/S Tarun Products. The possession of the shed was taken over by the present petitioner in the year 1988. Mr. Adarsh Jain submits that the possession was taken over on May 19, 1989. Assuming it to be so, it is not disputed that the premises have remained in the occupation of the present petitioner since then. The landlady has not got a penny by way of rent till today. Why? M/s Tarun Products and its sole proprietor-Mr. N.K. Sharma deny their liability as they are not in occupation. The present petitioner contends that it is not liable to pay as there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the two parties. The result is that the owner has been deprived of the use and occupation of the property for the last 14 years. This is extremely unjust and unfair.
6. It deserves notice that when the landlady filed a petition for eviction, the plea taken by the Corporation was that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. Today, the plea is that the case does not fall within the ambit of Order 15 Rule 5. It is clear that the effort is to avoid payment.
7. Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, it is clear that the process of law is resulting in defeating the purpose of law. The poor lady who is the owner of the property in dispute is being denied the use of the premises. At the same time, she is not even being paid. In fact, the payment has not been made for the last about 14 years. All sorts of pleas are being raised to defeat her claim. Since the Haryana Financial Corporation is admittedly in possession of the premises, it is liable to pay Mrs. Kulwant Kaur for use and occupation of the premises. If it thinks that the relationship of lessor and lessee was between Mrs. Kulwant Kaur and M/s Tarun Products, it can add the amount paid to Mrs. Kulwant Kaur to the amount due from M/s Tarun Products. However, the poor lady cannot be deprived of the money due to her. As for the order passed by the trial court, it may be noticed that the revision petition has been filed under Section 15(5) of the Rent Act. This provision is admittedly not applicable in the suit filed by the respondent-Mrs. Kulwant Kaur. The petition is wholly incompetent. The technical plea as sought to be raised by the petitioner must fail on the technical defence raised by the first respondent.
8. Mr. Adarsh Jain contends that the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 could not have been invoked in the present case. Since I have held that the revision petition is not maintainable, the contention need not be gone into.
9. No other point has been raised.
10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Since the petitioner has delayed the proceedings before the trial court for a period of almost 10 years by filing the present petition, the respondent-Mrs. Kulwant Kaur deserves to be compensated by payment of costs. The costs are assessed at Rs. 10,000/-.
11. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial court on March 2, 2002.