IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4135 of 2011 Date of Decision:12.7.2011 M/s Mukesh Kumar Rajesh Kumar and others .... Petitioner Versus Ashok Kumar .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is revision against the order dated 4.6.2011 passed by the Civil Judge, (Jr. Divn.) Ludhiana, whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC for seeking direction to the petitioners to pay lease amount for the period 1.5.2006 till date alongwith interest @ rate of 9% per annum and in case of default to strike off their defence was allowed. While challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that issues have already been framed in this case and the application was filed when the case is fixed for evidence. Further, the respondent had not challenged the framing of issues in the higher Court, wherein, one of the issue was as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to recovery the suit amount of Rs.2,20,000/- i.e. the lease amount. It was further contended that the plaintiff had never admitted the lease amount and as such the provision of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC is not applicable. Heard. The suit was filed for possession of the property and recovery of lease amount. Order 15 Rule 5 CPC reads as under: “Striking off defence for failute to deposit C.R. No.4135 of 2011 -2- 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 the default in making the deposit of the entire amount admitted by him to be due or monthly amount due as aforesaid, the Court may, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) strike off his defence.” Thus, there is no doubt that as per the provision, the admitted amount has to be paid. It is evident from the written statement filed by the petitioner-defendants that the defendants had admittedly taken the premises on rent for running the business at the rate of Rs.8500/- per month. Para 7 of the said written statement reads as under: “That the rate of rent of the occupied premises of 1K- 15M is Rs.8500/- PM only inclusive of all taxes. The rent note dated 5.11.2004 which is for the period 1.11.2004 to 30.4.2008 and the alleged lease deed dated 13.12.2005 which is for the period 1.11.2005 to 31.10.2008, both were got executed by the plaintiff due to having some tax problems of the govt. deptts. and the said fact is very much in the knowledge of plaintiff, otherwise there was no need to have execution of the said two irrevocable documents for the same purpose of having too much exaggerated rate of rent and lease.” Moreover, the submission in para 8 of the written statement that the said amount stands paid vide cheque bearing No.805844 dated 27.12.2006 of Rs.1,00,000/-, drawn on Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Ludhiana issued by the defendants towards C.R. No.4135 of 2011 -3- advance rent for the period 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2007 for the said premises and that the respondent has already received the three signed cheques each for Rs.1,00,000/- from the defendants in which the name of drawee was not filled up by the defendants towards advance rent for the period 1.1.2008 to 31.12.2009, has no merit in view of the finding recorded by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Ludhiana, which is not disputed before this Court at this stage that the aforesaid cheques were towards the purchase of rice and wheat floor for which they were to pay Rs.5 lacs for the purchase of the same. The cheques were dishonoured and a complaint was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga. The petitioner- defendants had compromised the matter and gave the alleged cheques towards that amount. The petitioner-defendants had also issued affidavits in this regard. Accordingly, in view of the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC as well as facts and circumstances of the present case and taking into account the law laid down by this Court in the case of M/s. Saras Paper Pack v. Shyam Sunder 2000(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 245, there is no merit in the present revision petition. Dismissed. However, the above observation shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 12.7.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE