In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 4561 of 2009 Date of decision: October 22, 2009 Ramesh Chand .. Petitioner Vs. Sube Singh and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.5.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Narnaul striking off the defence of the defendant-petitioner (herein referred as 'the petitioner') on the ground of non payment of rent during the period as provided under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC. Factual background of the case is that the suit was filed on 15.6.2002 by the respondent against the petitioner for possession. The entire arrears of rent were paid by the petitioner on 15.10.2002 and thereafter arrears of rent up to May, 2008 were paid by him from time to time. Ultimately after seven months thereof, on 31.1.2009, he moved application for depositing the remaining rent which was due and the court refused to entertain the application and struck off the defence for non payment of rent. The petitioner has challenged the said order in revision. Arguments heard. The provisions as envisaged in the Code with regard to payment of rent are not mandatory in nature. The procedural provisions cannot be imposed upon the parties as a mandate, but the same are the hand maid of administration of justice and may be examined after taking view point of both the parties as well as their conduct. In this case, as the arrears of rent stood already paid up to May, 2008 without any objection or resistance by the petitioner and he himself came to the court with the application on 31.1.2009 for depositing the rent for the remaining Civil Revision No. 4561 of 2009 -2- period. The respondent never resisted to strike off the defence for non deposit of the rent for the said period which may amount to waiver. In any case, the Apex Court in case M/s Mangat Singh Trilochan Singh Through Mangat Singh (D) through L.Rs and others vs. Satpal, 2004 (2) L.J.R. 175 observed as under :- “9. The trial court placed reliance on the decisions of this Court (supra) which have also been relied upon for the tenants before us on the interpretation of the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 of the Code. This Court has held that it is not obligatory for the court in every case to strike off defence only because there is delay in deposit of the arrears of rent. The court has discretion in the matter and the power to strike off the defence is to be exercised with due regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.” Here in this case, the conduct of the petitioner being very fair does not in any way warrant such a harsh step. He himself having moved the application for depositing the remaining rent of seven months and that he has been paying the rent prior to the filing of the suit as well as during the pendency of the suit cannot be non suited for little neglect. Thus, under these circumstances the equity lies in favour of the petitioner. The trial court having interpreted the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code in a stricter rigour, could not be appreciated in the given circumstances of the case. The court before taking such a harsh step should take note of over all facts and circumstances of the case and then to determine if such hard step could be taken. Resultantly, I accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned order dated 19.5.2009 and direct the trial court to proceed in accordance with law. However, the petitioner is directed to deposit the rent due within 15 days from today along with interest as provided under the Code. October 22, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge