ASHA RANI GUPTA versus SRI VINEET KUMAR

ASHA RANI GUPTA versus SRI VINEET KUMAR

Where the defendant, who did not deny his status as lessee, failed to deposit the admitted arrears and monthly rents and displayed volitional non-performance with no cogent evidence of lawful payment, the trial court rightly struck off his defence under Order XV Rule 5 CPC; the High Court erred in setting that order aside without adequate reasons and in granting an indulgence that the law and record did not support; deposits made only pursuant to the High Court order do not cure the prior default.

Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Asha Rani Gupta; Defendant Respondent: Sri Vineet Kumar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against High Court Order Under Article 227; Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court order set aside and trial court order restored.
Legal Topics
Order XV Rule 5 CPC, Striking Off Defence, Deposit of Admitted Rent, Discretionary Power of Court, Denial of Landlord Tenant Relationship
Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Law Rent and Eviction Order XV Rule 5 CPC Striking Off Defence Deposit of Admitted Rent Discretionary Power of Court Denial of Landlord Tenant Relationship

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asha Rani Gupta

Plaintiff Appellant

Sri Vineet Kumar

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against High Court Order Under Article 227; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was right to set aside the trial court order striking off defence under Order XV Rule 5 CPC for failure to deposit admitted rent
  2. 2 Whether denial of landlord-tenant relationship absolves defendant from deposit obligations under Order XV Rule 5 CPC
  3. 3 Whether deposits made pursuant to a later High Court order cure earlier default

Ratio Decidendi

Where the defendant, who did not deny his status as lessee, failed to deposit the admitted arrears and monthly rents and displayed volitional non-performance with no cogent evidence of lawful payment, the trial court rightly struck off his defence under Order XV Rule 5 CPC; the High Court erred in setting that order aside without adequate reasons and in granting an indulgence that the law and record did not support; deposits made only pursuant to the High Court order do not cure the prior default.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned High Court order set aside and trial court order restored.

Orders

  • Impugned High Court order dated 02.11.2018 set aside
  • Order dated 01.03.2017 of the Trial Court striking off the defence restored