HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 4 Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 106 of 2011 Petitioner :- Juneja Associates Private Litd. Thru' Jayant Juneja & Anr. Respondent :- Jagjeet Singh Johal Petitioner Counsel :- Amit Krishan Respondent Counsel :- Sharad Mandhyan Hon'ble Rajes Kumar,J.
The petitioner is a defendant in the suit. The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment, possession and damages. The petitioner filed written statement in the suit. It is the case of the petitioner that he has deposited the rent up to 30th May, 2008. As per the clause of the agreement, the petitioner has furnished security for Rs.5 lac and further a bank guarantee of Rs.5 lac. The bank guarantee has been encashed by the landlord. As per admitted case, premises has been vacated in December, 2008 and it is in possession of the landlord. The plaintiff-defendant moved an application under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. for striking off defence of the petitioner which has been allowed by the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in possession of the property upto December, 2008 and, therefore, he is liable to pay the rent only upto December, 2008 and the excess amount which is lying with the landlord is liable to be returned to the petitioner and, therefore, the court below has erred in striking off defence of the petitioner.
List has been revised. Though Sri Sharad Madhyan, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent but he is not present.
In view of the aforesaid fact, let the respondent may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List in week commencing 9.5.2011.
Till the next date of listing, further proceeding in SCC Case No. 9 of 2008 (Jagjeet Singh Johal Vs. Juneja Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another) pending in the court of IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar shall remain stayed.
Order Date :- 15.3.2011 OP