Civil Revision No. 711 of 2009(O&M) -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 711 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 1.05.2009. Raj Kumar Petitioner Versus Smt. Vinod Rani Jain ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the respondent ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The learned Rent Controller, vide impugned order, struck off the defence of the defendant-petitioner on account of the non- payment of the arrears of rent since June, 2007. That order came about in the wake of an application under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. which had been filed by the plaintiff-respondent. In the course of the allowed application, the plaintiff- respondent had made a precise plea that the defence of the defendant-petitioner may be struck off on account of non-payment of arrears of rent and also because he was not paying up the monthly rent regularly. In the counter to the plea aforementioned, the defendant- petitioner raised the following plea:- He paid a sum of Rs.5,30,000/- to the plaintiff-respondent Civil Revision No. 711 of 2009(O&M) -2- **** in the first week of January, 2007 as token money for the purchase of the property in suit itself. It was agreed that the sale price shall be fixed and an agreement in that regard would be executed in the month of May, 2007. The plea put forward by the defendant- petitioner thereby was that the plaintiff-respondent having agreed to sell the property under reference to the defendant-petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 53 lacs and a sum of Rs.5,30,000/- having been paid as earnest amount, it was not open to the plaintiff-respondent to raise a plea for striking off the defence of the defendant-petitioner. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff- respondent, reiterates the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Court in the allowance of the impugned application. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the defendant-petitioner, argues that though it is apparent from the record that arrears of rent were not paid, the Court acted fairly harshly in striking off the defence. The learned Trial Court, it is argued, that ought to have directed the defendant-petitioner to pay the arrears of rent with interest. Reliance in support of the advocated view his placed on M/s Mangat Singh Trilochan Singh Thr.Mangat Singh(D) thr. Lrs. And others Vs. Satpal 2004(2) RCR (Civil) 1. There can obviously be no dispute with the proposition that it is obligatory for the Court to strike off the defence of a party. It is further held that power in that regard has to be exercised with due regard of the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the defendant-petitioner does not appear to deserve Civil Revision No. 711 of 2009(O&M) -3- **** exercise of discretion in his favour. The alleged agreement Annexure P-5 was concededly not produced before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court found it fairly unnatural to accept that the entire earnest amount of Rs.5,30,000/- had been paid in cash and no receipt had been obtained in lieu thereof. These facts essentially weighed with the learned Trial Court in negativing the contention on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in case the agreed sale agreement did not finalise, the amount of Rs. 5,30,000/- was to be adjustable in the future rent. In the circumstances of the case, I found nothing perverse or illegal in the manner of appreciation of martial obtaining on the file by the learned Trial Court which recorded a possible view in the matter. The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. May 01, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge