Sh. Vijay Kumar Kakkar vs Sh. Shiv Narayan Yadav
2014 Latest Caselaw 3815 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                            CRP No. 116/2014
%                                               20th August, 2014

SH. VIJAY KUMAR KAKKAR                                    ......Petitioner
                  Through:               Mr. Pradeep Ahlawat, Advocate.


                             VERSUS

SH. SHIV NARAYAN YADAV                                      ...... Respondent
                  Through:

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.             The challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is to the impugned order of the trial court dated

10.7.2014 by which the trial court has struck off the defence of the

petitioner/defendant/tenant for non-compliance of the order for deposit of

pendente lite rent which was passed on 25.3.2014.


2.             The    only     ground     which     was     urged     by        the

petitioner/defendant/tenant for non-compliance was that the order dated

25.3.2014 was not known by the counsel for the petitioner. Trial court has

rejected this argument by observing that it is not conceivable that after
CRP 116/2014                                                                    Page 1 of 4
 passing a detailed order on a date when the counsel for the parties are

present and then when the case is adjourned to a long date of 10.7.2014, then

what was the order passed on 25.3.2014 would not be known to the

petitioner/defendant/tenant or his counsel. The trial court also notes that the

order dated 25.3.2014 was duly available on the website of the court and this

aspect has been got checked from the court's staff at the time of passing of

the impugned order. Consequently, trial court has held that the

petitioner/defendant/tenant could not contend that his counsel did not know

the order of deposit of rent.


3.             Suits are filed in Delhi in civil courts where the rent is more

than   Rs. 3500/- per month and in such suits tenants contumaciously for

some reason or the other in many cases want to deliberately delay the

disposal of the suit. The present suit is one such suit. The issue raised as to

the case as set up by the petitioner/defendant/tenant of his counsel not

knowing the order dated 25.3.2014 is not correct and in this regard the trial

court has rightly noted that the explanation put forth is clearly not

believable.


4.             Counsel for the petitioner argued before this Court that

petitioner will now immediately deposit the entire amount in terms of the

CRP 116/2014                                                                Page 2 of 4
 order dated 25.3.2014, however, I am not agreeable in the facts of the

present case which is a case between the landlord and tenant for eviction of

the petitioner/tenant from the tenanted premises where the rent stated by the

landlord is more than Rs.3500/- inasmuch as if the petitioner was sincere

enough, petitioner/defendant/tenant instead of making an offer to this Court,

should have first deposited the amount before the trial court immediately

after passing of the impugned order and then sought extension of time for

making the deposit by seeking recall of the order dated 10.7.2014, but the

same has not been done and instead after filing of this petition offer is made

now to deposit the amount in terms of the order dated 25.3.2014. I may note

that though the impugned order records that petitioner/defendant/tenant was

ready to deposit the amount, however, it is noted that till date the amount to

be deposited pursuant to the order dated 25.3.2014 has however not been

deposited before the trial court or this Court alongwith the petition.

Petitioner thus was trying to take a chance to set aside the impugned order

without first actually complying with the order of deposit dated 25.3.2014.


5.    I may note that in spite of the order striking off the defence of the

petitioner/defendant/tenant, respondent/plaintiff/landlord will still be bound

to lead evidence to prove his case and the witnesses of the

CRP 116/2014                                                                  Page 3 of 4
 respondent/plaintiff/landlord can always be cross-examined by the

petitioner/defendant/tenant.


6.             In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this petition,

and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own

costs.



AUGUST 20, 2014                               VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib