Uttarakhand High Court
Pratibha Devi And Others … vs Gaurav Jain And Another on 18 February, 2026
2026:UHC:1094
Judgment Reserved on: 13.02.2026
Judgment Delivered on:18.02.2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
CIVIL REVISION NO.129 OF 2025
Pratibha Devi and Others ...Revisionists
Versus
Gaurav Jain and Another ...Respondents.
Counsel for the revisionists : Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel
and Mr. Nikhil Singhal (through V.C.),
learned counsel.
JUDGMENT:
(per Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, J.)
This civil revision is directed against the order dated
16.10.2025 passed by the learned Judge SCC/1st Additional
District Judge, Haridwar in SCC Suit No.06 of 2024, “Gaurav
Jain & Anr. Vs. Smt. Partibha Devi & Ors.”,
2. The revisionists have assailed the aforesaid order by
which the application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC of the
respondents was allowed and the defense of the revisionists
was struck off.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that, the
respondents herein (plaintiffs in the suit) filed the suit under
the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the revisionists
(respondents in the suit) seeking a relief of eviction, arrears of
rent and damages. The respondents claimed that their
property – The Hotel Grand Lajja was given on rent to the
revisionists initially at the rent of ₹6 lakh per month and 18%
1
2026:UHC:1094
GST and the tenancy started from 07.10.2021 and the rent
was to be paid on the 10th day of every month.
4. As per the case of the respondents/plaintiffs, from
October, 2023 the rent was to be enhanced and from the said
date the rent payable was ₹8 lakh per month and 18% GST.
As per the respondents/plaintiffs, rent since September, 2023
was not paid and only 50% of the GST amount was paid since
31.08.2023 and as such the revisionist was defaulter. A suit
for eviction, arrears of rent and damages was thus filed, which
was registered as Suit No.6 of 2024.
5. The revisionists / respondents filed their written
statement on 03.04.2025 and did not dispute the relationship
of tenant-landlord, however, disputed the amount payable
towards arrears of rent on various grounds. The application
filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC
was considered and decided on 16.10.2025 striking off the
defense of the revisionists / respondents against which the
present revision has been preferred.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that as
per the case of the revisionists the rent from July, 2025 was
only payable to the respondents. Though the rent of July,
2025 amounting to ₹8 lakh was paid with some delay,
however, the rent for the month of August and September,
2025 only could not be paid. The reasons for the delay was
bonafide as negotiations were being held between the parties
2
2026:UHC:1094
for which he refers to the order-sheet to contend that as talks
were going on between the parties as such the rent was not
paid.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionists refers to the
various judgments, namely, Asha Rani Gupta Vs. Vineet
Kumar (2023) 20 SCC 273, Mangat Singh Trilochan Singh Vs.
Satpal (2003) 8 SCC 357, Bimal Chand Jain Vs. Sri Gopal
Agarwal (1981) 3 SCC 486 and Mukesh Verma and Anr. Vs.
Sushant Misra ALL. High Court in Writ Petition No.1662 of
2018. On the basis of the said judgments, learned counsel for
the revisionists contends that the word ‘may’ in Sub-rule (1)
of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC merely vests power in the Court to
strike off the defense and it is not oblige it to do so in every
case of default.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
/plaintiffs contends that the revisionist is a willful defaulter as
neither the arrears of rent nor the rent of ₹8 lakh per month
was deposited before the Trial Court. He further disputed that
amount of ₹60 lakh was spent by the revisionists on the
rented property.
9. He further submits that contention of the
revisionists that rent was not paid on monthly basis as talks
were going on between the parties for amicable settlement is
an afterthought as no such ground was ever taken by the
revisionists before the Trial Court. He further submits that, as
3
2026:UHC:1094
per Order 15 Rule 5 CPC, the rent is to be deposited per
month and in case of any default representation can be filed
showing bonafide for not depositing the said rent. He refers to
the stand taken by the revisionists/respondents before the
Trial Court wherein despite depositing the rent of ₹8 lakh for
the month of July, 2025 again the revisionists/respondents
disputed the said rent and as such he submits that once the
revisionists admitted in the written statement and the
objection filed in response to the application to Order 15 Rule
5 CPC, the admitted rent to be ₹8 lakh then the action of the
revisionists in disputing the said admitted rent once again
was a deliberate act of default without any justifiable reason.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied
on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Asha
Rani Gupta Vs. Vineet Kumar (2023) 20 SCC 273 and
contends that Order 15 Rule 5 CPC embodies the fundamental
principle that there is no holidaying for a tenant in payment of
rent or damages for use and occupation.
11. The question which falls for determination in the
present revision is that as to whether learned Trial Court, on
the basis of material available on record, was justified in
striking off the defense of the revisionists and in holding that
the approach of the revisionists in not depositing the due rent
on monthly basis was an approach of defiance or volitional /
elective non-performance.
4
2026:UHC:1094
12. There is no dispute between the parties on tenant-
landlord relationship, however, the revisionist disputes the
arrears of rent payable to the respondents and also contends
that the entire property was not rented to him and he spent
huge amount in construction which was adjusted towards the
arrears of rent.
13. So far as the rent payable to the
respondents/plaintiffs from October, 2023 @ ₹8 lakh per
month is concerned, the revisionists in their written statement
filed on 03.04.2025 made the following statement in
paragraph no.17 to 19, which reads as under:
“17 ¼l=g½& ;g fd fnukad 01-10-2021 ¼,d vDVwcj nks gtkj bDdhl½ ls
fnukad 30-09-2023 ¼rhl flrEcj nks gtkj rsbZl½ rd dqy pkSchl
ekg curs gS] ftles ls N% ekg dk fdjk;k ekQ gksus ;ksX; gS vkSj
dqy vBkjg ekg dk fdjk;k N% yk[k :i;s dh nj ls dqy lEifÙk
dk ¼tcfd dqy lEifÙk dks oknxzLr lEifÙk es ‘kkfey ugha fd;k
x;kA½ ,d djksM+ vkB yk[k :i;s curk gS rFkk fnukad 01-10-
2023 ¼,d vDVwcj nks gtkj rsbZl½ ls fnukad 31-03-2025 ¼bdrhl
ekpZ nks gtkj iPphl½ rd dqy 18 ¼vBkjg½ ekg ftles ls
fnukad 26-12-2023 ¼NCchl fnlEcj nks gtkj rsbZl½ ls fnukad 23-
09-2024 ¼rsbZl flrEcj nks gtkj pkSchl½ rd dqy 9 ¼ukS½ ekg dk
fdjk;k fo|qr lIykbZ ckf/kr gksus ds dkj.k oknh çkIr djus dk
vf/kdkjh ugh gS] dsoy ukS ekg dk fdjk;k 8 ¼vkB½ yk[k :i;s
çfrekg e; VSDl 72 ¼cgkÙkj½ yk[k :i;s curk gSA
18 ¼vBkjg½& ;g fd çfroknuh }kjk vxLr 2023 ¼nks gtkj rsbZl½ rd oknh dks
eqcå 1]44]00]000@& ¼,d djksM+ pOokyhl yk[k½ :i;s vnk dj
pqds gS rFkk eqcå 60]00]000@& ¼lkB yk[k½ :i;s çfroknuh }kjk
tks dk;Z ç’uxr lEifÙk es djk;s tks fd mijksä iSjk esa Li”V
fd;k x;k gS] es [kpZ fd;k] bl çdkj oknh eqcå 2]04]00]000@&
¼nks djksM+ pkj yk[k½ :i;s dk Hkqxrku dj pqdh gSA tcfd dsoy
eqcå 1]80]00]000@& ¼,d djksM+ vLlh yk[k½ :i;s gh oknh ds
fnukad 31-03-2025 ¼bdrhl ekpZ nks gtkj iPphl½ rd curs gSA
bl çdkj çfroknuh ds oknh dh vksj eqcå 24]00]000@& ¼pkSchl
yk[k½ vfxze /kujkf’k fdjk;s ds :i esa tek pys vk jgs gSA ;gka
;g fo’ks”k :i ls mYys[kuh; gS fd oknh }kjk iwoZ esa fdjk;k cSad
es fd’r tek djus ds dkj.k viuh etcwjh tkfgj djds
çfroknuh ls çkIr fd;k Fkk vkSj vfxze fdjk;s es lek;ksftr djus
dh ckr dgh x;h Fkh rFkk tks eqcå 60]00]000@& ¼lkB yk[k½
:i;s fdjk;s es lek;ksftr djus dh ckr gqbZ Fkh] tc çfroknuh
}kjk oknh dks fglkc djus vkSj iwoZ es tks /kujkf’k çkIr dh tks
çfroknuh }kjk 60 ¼lkB½ yk[k :i;s [kpZ fd;s mldks lek;ksftr
djus ;k Hkqxrku djus ds fy, dgk rks oknh o mlds firk ukjkt
5
2026:UHC:1094
gks x;s vkSj çfroknuh dks /kedh nsus yxs vkSj ç’uxr lEifÙk ls
fo|qr duSD’ku dks foPNsfnr djk fn;k] ftlls çfroknuh dk lkjk
dke Bi gks x;kA çfroknuh }kjk U;k;ky; es okn nk;j djds
U;k;ky; ds vkns’k ls fo|qr foHkkx ls iqu% duSD’ku çkIr fd;Ka
19 ¼mUuhl½& ;g fd bl çdkj çfroknuh dh vksj oknh dk dksbZ fdjk;k cdk;k
ugh gS cfYd çfroknuh ds eqcå 24]00]000@& ¼pkSchl yk[k½
:i;s mijksäkuqlkj oknh dh vksj vfxze fdjk;s ds :i esa tek
pys vkrs gSA ,slh fLFkfr es oknh dk okn dkuwuu iks”k.kh; ugh gS
vkSj fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA”
14. Further, in reply to the application filed by the
respondents under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC, the revisionists in
their objections dated 26.05.2025 made the following
averments in paragraph no.7, which reads as under:
“7- ;g fd çfroknuh vxLr 2023 rd oknh dks eqc0 1]44]00]000@& :i;s
vnk dj pqdh gS rFkk eqcå 60]00]000@& :i;s çfroknuh }kjk tks dk;Z ç’uxr
lEifÙk es djk;s ftUgs mÙkji= ds iSjk laå 9 esa mYysf[kr fd;k gS] es [kpZ fd;k
gS] bl çdkj çfroknuh dqy eqcå 2]04]00]000@& :i;s vnk dj pqdh gSA tcfd
fnukad 31-03-2025 rd oknh ds dsoy eqcå 1]80]00]000@& :i;s gh curs FksA
bl çdkj çfroknuh ds oknh dh vksj eqc0 24]00]000@& vfxze /kujkf’k fdjk;s
ds :i esa tek pyh vkrh gS] tks fd twu 2025 rd ds fdjk;s ds :i es tek gSA
bl çdkj çfroknuh dh vksj dksbZ fdjk;k cdk;k ugh gSA ftl dkj.k oknh dk
çkFkZuki= vUrxZr vkns’k 15 fu;e 5 fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA”
15. Admittedly, no representation was submitted by the
revisionists before the Trial Court, as provided under Rule 5 of
Order 15 CPC, either within ten days of the first hearing or of
the expiry of the week referred to in the Sub-section (1) as
the case may be. Order 15 Rule 5 CPC reads as under:
“5. Striking off defence for failure to deposit
admitted rent.–(1) In any suit by a lessor for the
eviction of a lessee after the determination of his
lease and for the recovery from him of rent or
compensation for use and occupation, the defendant
shall, at or before the first hearing of the suit,
deposit the entire amount admitted by him to be
due together with interest thereon at the rate of
nine per cent. per annum and whether or not he
admits any amount to be due, he shall throughout
the continuation of the suit regularly deposit the
monthly amount due within a week from the date of
its accrual, and in the event of any default in
6
2026:UHC:1094
making the deposit of the entire amount admitted
by him to be due or the monthly amount due as
aforesaid, the Court may, subject to the provisions
of sub-rule (2) strike off his defence.
Explanation 1–The expression “first hearing” means
the date for filing written statement for hearing
mentioned in the summons or where more than one
of such dates are mentioned, the last of the dates
mentioned.
Explanation 2–The expression “entire amount
admitted by him to be due” means the entire gross
amount, whether as rent or compensation for use
and occupation, calculated at the admitted rate of
rent for the admitted period of arrears after making
no other deduction except the taxes, if any, paid to
a local authority in respect of the building on
lessor’s account “[and the amount, if any, paid to
the lessor acknowledged by the lessor in writing
signed by him] and the amount, if any, deposited in
any Court under section 30 of the U.P. Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972.
Explanation 3–(1) The expression “monthly amount
due” means the amount due every month, whether
as rent or compensation for use and occupation at
the admitted rate of rent, after making no other
deduction except the taxes, if any, paid to a local
authority, in respect of the building on lessor’s
account.
(2) Before making an order for striking off defence,
the Court may consider any representation made by
the defendant in that behalf provided such
representation is made within 10 days of the first
hearing or, of the expiry of the week referred to in
sub-section (1), as the case may be.
(3) The amount deposited under this rule may at
any time be withdrawn by the plaintiffProvided that such withdrawal shall not have the
effect of prejudicing any claim by the plaintiff
disputing the correctness of the amount deposited:
Provided further that if the amount deposited
includes any sums claimed by the depositor to be7
2026:UHC:1094
deductible on any account, the Court may require
the plaintiff to furnish the security for such sum
before he is allowed to withdraw the same.”
16. The stand taken by the revisionists / respondents
before the learned Trial Court is that as he is not in a
possession of the entire rented accommodation as such rent
of ₹8 lakh was not payable to the respondents and the same
cannot be deposited before the Court below.
17. Paragraph no.12 and 16 of the order under
challenge wherein the said discussion has been made reads as
under:
“12- çfroknh ds }kjk bl lEcU/k esa ;g rdZ fn;k x;k fd oknh }kjk mls
ç’uxr lEifÙk tks fd okni= esa viw.kZ nf’kZr dh x;h gS] dk 6 yk[k :i;s
çfrekg tks fd vkxs c<+dj 8 yk[k :i;s çfrekg fdjk;snkj gksuk crk;k x;k gS]
rFkk bl lEifÙk ds ‘ks”k Hkkx ds ckcr mls voS/k dCtsnkj gksuk crkrs gq, ,d
vU; ewyokn laå 273@2023 ;ksftr fd;k gS] tcfd og lEiw.kZ lEifÙk tks fd 16
ch?ks pyh vkrh gS- dk fdjk;snkj gS vkSj bl 16 ch?ks dh lEifÙk dk dqy fdjk;k
6 yk[k :i;s Fkk tks ckn esa c<+dj 8 yk[k :i;s gksuk r; gqvk FkkA rc og
fdl çdkj viw.kZ lEifÙk dk fdjk;k 8 yk[k :i;s U;k;ky; esa tek djs vFkok
oknh dks vnk djsA bl ij U;k;ky; Li”V djuk vko’;d ikrh gS fd blh
lEifÙk ij cus ,d vU;= dejs / lEifÙk ds ckcr i{kks ds e/; ,d vU; ,xzhesaV
fdjk;snkjh ckcr fy[kk x;k] ftldk Hkh ,d [kQhQk okn la[;k 01@2024 bl
U;k;ky; esa yfEcr gSA ,sls esa ;g vHkh lk{; dk fo”k; gS fd oknh us fdjk;snkjh
esa tks lEifÙk 16 ch?ks vius ,xzhesaV esa fdjk;s ij nsus ckcr fy[kh gS mlesa dkSu
dkSu lh fufeZr lEifÙk vkSj [kkyh LFkku çfroknhx.k dks bl okni= esa nkf[ky
,xzhesaV ds vuqlkj fn;k x;k Fkk] D;ksafd blh lEifÙk ds ,d dejs dks ckn esa
oknh us çfroknhx.k dks vyx ls fdjk;s ij fn;kA ,sls esa i{kks ds e/; dbZ okn
py jgs gSa rFkk ;g fcUnq fd oknh }kjk fdruh lEifÙk vkSj mlesa cus fdrus
fuekZ.k o [kkyh LFkku dks oknh us] çfroknhx.k dks fdjk;s ij fn;k Fkk vkSj fdruh
lEifÙk dks ml 16 ch?ks dh lEifÙk esa ls] vius ikl j[kk Fkk] lk{; dk fo”k; gks
tkrk gS tks fd oknh dks loZçFke Lo;a gh fl) djuk gksxkA ,sls esa tcfd
çfroknhx.k Lo;a bl ckr dks Lohdkjrk gS fd ç’uxr lEifÙk tks fd mlds ikl
16ch?ks ds :i esa ekStwn pyh vkrh gS ftlesa gksVy] cSadsaV g‚y o [kqyk y‚u
lfEefyr gS] rc mldh ftEesnkjh gS fd og tc ls og bl ckr dks Lohdkjrk gS
fd ml ij bl lEifÙk dk fdjk;k cdk;k pyk vkrk gS vFkok okftc gksrk gS] og
mä vof/k dk fdjk;k fu;ekuqlkj U;k;ky; / oknh dks nsrk jgs] ysfdu çfroknh
}kjk ,slk ugha fd;k x;k] tksfd çfroknhx.k ds Hkkx esa pwd dks nf’kZr djrk gSA
,d okn çfroknhx.k }kjk ek= ,d ckj 8 yk[k :i;s tek fd;k x;k rFkk mlds
mijkar ls çfroknhx.k }kjk dksbZ Hkh fdjk;k vnk u djuk rFkk igyh ckj Hkh
le; vof/k ds mijkar fdjk;k vnk djuk çfroknh ds Hkkx esa tkucw>dj dh tk
jgh ykijokgh @ pwd dks çnf’kZr djrk gS rFkk ;gka ij ,d ckj oknh ds
dFkukuqlkj 8 yk[k :i;s ekgokj fdjk;k ekudj Lohdkj dj ysuk vkSj fQj iqu%
fdjk;k vnk uk djuk] ;g çnf’kZr djrk gS fd çfroknh uk rks lEifÙk dks [kkyh
djus ds i{k esa gS vkSj uk gh lEifÙk dk fdjk;k vnk djus dks rS;kj gS tcfd
mls çfrekg bl lEifÙk dk fdjk;k fu;ekuqlkj le; ij vnk djuk pkfg,A ;gka
8
2026:UHC:1094
ij ;g rF; Hkh egRoiw.kZ gS fd tc çfroknh bl ckr dks Lohdkjrs gSa fd mUgksus
,d ,xzhesaV ds rgr ç’uxr lEifÙk ds ckcr ,d fdjk;kukek oknh ds lkFk
fy[kdj r; fd;k] rc og 8 yk[k :i;s dk fdjk;k lEiw.kZ 16 ch?ks vkSj ml ij
cuh lEifÙk ds ckcr gS] ;k vyx vyx lEifÙk ds ckcr] ;g lk{; dk fo”k; gS-
ysfdu çfroknhx.k lEifÙk ij dkfct gS o lEifÙk dk mi;ksx o miHkksx dj jgsa
vkSj Lo;a bl rF; dks Lohdkjrs gSa fd lEiw.kZ lEifÙk dk fdjk;k igys 6 yk[k
:i;s o fQj 8 yk[k :i;s ekgokj r; gqvk Fkk] ftlls çfroknhx.k dks vius
Loh–r dFkuksa ds vk/kkj oknh dks çfrekg fdjk;k vnk djuk vko’;d gS] tksfd
mlds }kjk ugha fd;k tk jgk gSA ,sls esa iqu% ;g çfroknhx.k ds Hkkx esa
tkucw>dj dh tk jgh pwd gSA
16- ,sls esa mijksä uthjksa ,oa çko/kkuksa ds vkyksd esa o U;k;ky; }kjk tks iwoZ esa
i{kks ds dFkuks ij foospu dj er fn;k x;k] ds mijkar U;k;ky; bl er dh gS
fd çfroknhx.k }kjk lEifÙk dk mi;ksx o miHkksx djus ds mijkar Hkh çR;sd ekg
dk fdjk;k rd oknh dks vnk ugha fd;k tk jgk gS] tcfd mls leLr fdjk;k tks
fd og Lohdkjrk gS] dks okn dh lquokbZ dh çFke frfFk dks U;k;ky; esa tek
djuk pkfg, Fkk ;k oknh dks vnk djuk pkfg, Fkk] ysfdu mlds }kjk dsoy ,d
ckj ,d ekg dk fdjk;k 8 yk[k :i;s ek= tek fd;k x;k tksfd le; vof/k
fudyus ds ckn tek fd;k x;k rFkk mlds mijkar ls Hkh ml ij vkt rd nks
ekg dk fdjk;k okftc gks pyk gS] tksfd og Lo;a Lohdkjrk gS] ftls mlds }kjk
u rks oknh dks vnk fd;k tk jgk gS vkSj u gh U;k;ky; esa tek fd;k tk jgk gS]
rc çfroknhx.k dk çfrj{kk dk volj vkns’k 15 fu;e 5 nhokuh çfØ;k lafgrk
ds rgr lekIr fd;k tkuk ;g U;k;ky; ikrh gS rFkk çfroknhx.k ds –R;ksa dks
ns[krs gq, mlds }kjk nkf[ky uthjksa dk dksbZ ykHkk mls ugha fn;k tk ldrk gSA
rnuqlkj oknh dk çkFkZuk i= 23x Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA”
18. The learned Trial Court took cognizance of the stand
taken by the revisionists in their written statement and the
objection filed to the application Under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC
and, on the basis of the aforesaid material, came to the
conclusion that the revisionist, who had himself admitted rent
to be ₹8 lakh per month and who had, in fact, deposited once
the said rent of ₹8 lakh in the month of July belatedly before
the Trial Court was unjustified in disputing the aforesaid
monthly payable rent and the said approach of the revisionists
was of elective non-performance.
19. The Court has also perused material available on
record and the discretion exercised by the learned Trial Court
in coming to the said conclusion cannot be faulted. The Court
has also perused the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court
9
2026:UHC:1094
in the case of Asha Rani Gupta (supra) in which it was held
that in case of deliberate defiance or volitional / elective non-
performance, the consequence of law remains inevitable, that
the defence of such a defendant would be struck off.
Paragarph nos. 38, 39, 40 and 46 of the aforesaid judgment
are extracted hereunder:
“38. Reverting to the provisions under
consideration, it is noticed that while the first part of
sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 Order 15CPC requires deposit
of the admitted due amount of rent together with
interest, the second part thereof mandates that
whether or not the tenant admits the amount to be
due, he has to, throughout the continuation of the
suit, regularly deposit monthly amount due within a
week from the date of its accrual. Read as a whole,
it is but clear that Order 15 Rule 5CPC embodies the
fundamental principle that there is no holidaying for
a tenant in payment of rent or damages for use and
occupation, whether the lease is subsisting or it has
been determined. The only basic requirement in the
suit of the nature envisaged by Order 15 Rule 5CPC
is the character of the defendant as being the
lessee/tenant in the suit premises. Viewed from this
angle, we are not inclined to accept the line of
thought in some of the decisions of the High Court
that in every case of denial of relationship of
landlord and tenant, the defendant in suit for
eviction and recovery of rent/damages could enjoy
holidays as regards payment of rent.
39. For what has been discussed hereinabove, the
decision of the High Court in Ladly Prasad [Ladly
Prasad v. Ram Shah Billa, 1975 SCC OnLine All 294
: (1976) 2 ALR 8] does not require much dilation
when it remains indisputable that it is not always
obligatory on the court to strike off the defence.
However, the said decision cannot be read to mean
that despite default of the tenant in payment of
rent, the defence has to be permitted irrespective of
its baselessness. The decision in Kunwar Baldevji
[Kunwar Baldevji v. Addl. District Judge,
Bulandshahar, 2003 SCC OnLine All 311 : (2003) 1
ARC 637] , again, would have no application to the10
2026:UHC:1094
facts of the present case. Herein, the respondent-
defendant has not only omitted to deposit the rent
on the first date of the hearing but, has also omitted
to deposit the accrued rent during the pendency of
the suit.
40. In a suit of the present nature, where the
defendant otherwise has not denied his status as
being the lessee, it was rather imperative for him to
have scrupulously complied with the requirements
of law and to have deposited the arrears of rent due
together with interest on or before the first date of
hearing and in any case, as per the second part of
sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 Order 15CPC, he was under
the specific obligation to make regular deposit of the
monthly amount due, whether he was admitting any
such dues or not.
46. With respect, the said conclusion of the High
Court could only be said to be an assumptive one,
being not supported by any reason. In para 43, of
course, the High Court observed with reference to
the decisions of this Court that the discretionary
power must be exercised with great circumspection
but, such enunciation by this Court cannot be read
to mean that whatever may be the fault and want of
bona fide in the defendant/tenant, he would be
readily given the so-called “indulgence” of not
striking off defence. Such an approach is neither
envisaged by the statutory provisions nor by the
referred decisions. In fact, such an approach would
simply render the relevant provisions of law rather
nugatory. The expected circumspection would
require the Court to be cautious of all the relevant
facts and the material on record and not to strike off
the defence as a matter of routine. However, when
a case of the present nature is before the Court,
disclosing deliberate defiance and volitional/elective
non-performance, the consequence of law remains
inevitable, that the defence of such a defendant
would be struck off.”
20. In the present case, perusal of the written
statement, objection to the application filed under Order 15
Rule 5 CPC and the stand of the revisionists before the Trial
Court indicates that despite admitting the rent to be ₹8 lakh
11
2026:UHC:1094
per month and despite an admission on the part of the
revisionists that rent of ₹8 lakh was payable from July, 2025,
the revisionists deliberately on its own volition failed to
deposit rent on monthly basis.
21. This Court under the revisional jurisdiction can
interfere in the order passed by the learned Trial Court, in
case, the said findings are totally perverse or any order is
passed without jurisdiction. In the present case, the learned
Trial Court has given cogent reasons while exercising its
discretionary power to struck off defense after going through
the entire material available on record and after considering
the facts of the case.
22. In view of the above discussion, this Court do not
find any merit in the present revision and is not inclined to
take any view different than the view taken by the learned
Trial Court. Thus, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed at
the admission stage itself.
23. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications,
if any pending, shall stand closed.
___________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt:18.02.2026
Sukhbant
SUKHBANT
Digitally signed by SUKHBANT SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129a8a6380
SINGH
d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B7D72C4
2261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH
Date: 2026.02.18 16:35:07 +05’30’
12
