AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
This is a tenant's revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The respondent/landlord had filed a suit being Suit No.11 of 2018 before the Small Cause Court at Dehradun for rent and eviction against the revisionists. The revisionists did not deposit the entire admitted rent and even failed to deposit the regular monthly amount of rent after the institution of the suit, and therefore, the court below came to the conclusion that the revisionists have committed a default under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC and struck off the defence of the revisionists under the aforesaid provision vide order dated 12.10.2018. Aggrieved by this order, the revisionists have filed the present civil revision before this Court.
It is absolutely clear from the order dated 12.10.2018 and even from the statement given by the counsel for the tenant/revisionists that at least after March, 2018 during the pendency of the suit, they had not deposited the monthly rent. The revisionists have not been able to submit any proof regarding their having deposited the rent before the court below.
All the same, now a statement has been given by the learned counsel for the revisionists under instruction from his clients at this stage that out of the total outstanding amount of Rs.10,32,300/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Three Hundred), the revisionists shall be depositing Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs) within a period of one month and the remaining amount within a period of fifteen days thereafter and they shall continue to deposit the monthly rent regularly.
Under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC, discretionary powers have been given to the Court. This is also a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. Consequently, under the present changed circumstances, and more importantly with the consent of both the parties, it is held that in case the revisionists deposit the aforesaid amount within the time as stated in the preceding paragraph, the opportunity to adduce defence shall be granted to the revisionists.
It is made clear that the amount so deposited by the revisionists by the orders of this Court and on the statement given by the learned counsel for the revisionists shall not prejudice the defence of the revisionists during the trial. It is made clear that if the aforesaid amount is not deposited by the revisionists within the stipulated time, their defence shall be deemed to have been struck off.
In view thereof, the order dated 12.10.2018 is set aside. The civil revision stands disposed in terms of the above order.