Pratibha Devi And Others ... vs Gaurav Jain And Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 1167 UK

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%

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

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

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.

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

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

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 plaintiff

Provided 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 be

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

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

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 the

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

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

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF

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'