IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 3696 of 2009 Date of Decision: 26.8.2009 Massif International Colleve and others ....Petitioners. Versus M/s High Rise Infrastructure Private Ltd. ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. K.G. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for setting aside the order dated 13.5.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula, whereby the application filed by the landlord-respondent was allowed and the defence of the defendant- petitioners-tenants was struck off under Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure on account of non-payment of amount of arrears of rent etc. The trial court while striking off the defence of the tenant- petitioners had, in paras 10 and 11 of its order, recorded as under:- “10. In the present suit, defendant no.3 had made a statement that he was ready and willing to pay part payment of arrears of rent amounting to C.R. No. 3696 of 2009 -2- Rs.1,50,000/- but the same was not paid. The defendants have not even paid the monthly amount due within a week from the date of its accrual during the pendency of the present suit as envisaged under Order 15 Rule 5 (1) CPC. The defendants are admittedly spending huge amount in renovation of showroom but they have not bothered to pay the rent of the premises to the plaintiff even from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 21.5.2008. In case titled Anandi Devi Vs. Om Parkash 1987 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 527, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that where the tenant failed to deposit arrears of rent together with interest and costs in compliance with Order 15 Rule 5 CPC, the landlord's application for striking of defence must be allowed and eviction suit should be decreed. 11. The object of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC is that no landlord should be deprived of his right to receive the rent and no tenant should be allowed to live in the premises free of charge simply because all sorts of pleas can be taken in the pleadings. In these circumstances, the defence of defendants is struck of. The application is accordingly allowed.” C.R. No. 3696 of 2009 -3- In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 13.5.2008 passed by the trial court which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. August 26, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE