IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2494 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 4.5.2009 Naib Singh ....Petitioner Versus Baljit Singh ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. S.M. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL J **** The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated March 24, 2009 passed by learned court below whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC for striking off defence of respondent/defendant was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent is tenant in the shop and he is not paying any rent. Even after filing of the suit, the rent was not tendered and in terms of provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC, his defence was liable to be struck off. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submission made. A perusal of stand taken by respondent/defendant in the written statement, as has been extracted in the petition, shows that the relationship of landlord and tenant with the petitioner is denied. No amount of rent payable is admitted. The provision of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC will come into play only in a case where admitted rent is not paid. Accordingly, there is no question of striking off defence of respondent/defendant. The Petition is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 4.5.2009 JUDGE Reema