Naveen Kumar Gupta v. Mahamai Shiksha Samiti
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10008 of 2025 Naveen Kumar Gupta .....Petitioner(s) Versus Mahamai Shiksha Samiti (Regd) Kankarkheda .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashish Tyagi, Rahul Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Pranshu Gupta Tyagi Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar Tyagi as well as Mr. Ashish Tyagi, learned counsels for the petitioner and Mr. Pranshu Gupta, learned counsel for respondent. 2. Brief facts of the case are that small cause suit No. 3 of 2007 was filed by plaintiff/ respondent impleading the petitioner/ defendant as opposite party for arrears of rent and ejectment from the shop in dispute. Petitioner/ defendant has filed his written statement in the aforementioned SCC suit. Parties filed evidences in support of their case. In the aforementioned SCC suit, an application (61-Ga) under Order 15 Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure hereinafter referred to as C.P.C. was filed on behalf of plaintiff/ respondent. On behalf of petitioner/ defendant, objection was filed to the application filed under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. Judge Small Cause vide order dated 30.8.2024 allowed the application- 61 Ga filed under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. at the instance of plaintiff/ respondent and struck off the defence of defendant/ petitioner. Against the order dated 30.8.2024, petitioner/ defendant filed revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Court Act. The aforementioned proceeding was registered as SCC revision No. 102 of 2024. The aforementioned revision was heard and dismissed vide judgement dated 12.2.2025. Petitioner/ defendant challenged the order dated 12.2.2025 as well as 30.8.2024 before this Court by way of Matter under Article 227 No. 3264 of 2025. This Court vide order dated 7.4.2025 allowed the petition disposed of the petition with liberty to petitioner to file 2 A227 No. 10008 of 2025 representation as provided under Order 15 Rule 5 (2) of C.P.C. within two weeks and the same shall be decided within period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 7.4.2025, application/ representation was not filed within time allowed by this Court. Petitioner/ tenant filed an application 78-Ga dated 9.5.2025 before Judge Small Cause in SCC suit No. 3 of 2007 with the prayer to permit him to deposit the balance rent payable by the tenant to the landlord as well as afford opportunity to defendant/ tenant to adduce evidence. Judge Small Cause vide order dated 21.5.2025 rejected the application- 78- Ga filed by defendant/ tenant and fixed the SCC suit for evidence. Hence this petition for the following relief:- "Issue an appropriate order or direction for set-asiding the impugned judgment and order dated 30.08.2024 & Small causes judge, 21.05.2025 passed by Meerut in District Small Causes Case No. 03 of 2007; Mahamai Shiksha Samiti Vs. Naveen Kumar Gupta, as the impugned judgment and formal order dated 12.02.2025 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. well as 5, Meerut in Small Causes Case Revision No. 102 of 2024; Naveen Kumar Gupta Vs. Mahamai Shiksha Samiti (Regd) Kankarkhera, Meerut." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the order allowing the application under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. as well as order dismissing the revision, petition filed before this Court was disposed of with liberty to defendant/ petitioner to file representation as provided under Order 15 Rule 5 (2) of C.P.C. but application filed by petitioner/ defendant/ tenant has been dismissed under the impugned order on the technical ground. He submitted that petitioner's application 78-Ga should be allowed and impugned order should be set aside. He submitted that SCC suit should be decided on merit giving opportunity to petitioner/ defendant to adduce evidence in proper manner. He submitted that defence of the defendant cannot be struck off in arbitrary manner. He submitted that instant petition should be allowed and impugned order should be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/ landlord submitted that SCC suit was filed in the year 2007 and same is still pending even after expiry of more than 18 years. He submitted that petitioner/ defendant/ tenant is not participating in the proceeding in proper manner. He submitted that on the application of the plaintiff/ respondent/ landlord, the defence of the petitioner/ defendant has rightly been struck off by the 3 A227 No. 10008 of 2025 Judge Small Cause. He submitted that opportunity given by this Court to avail remedy as provided under Order 15 Rule 5 (2) C.P.C. has also not been availed by petitioner/ defendant within time allowed by this Court in order to linger on the proceeding of SCC suit on one ground or other. He submitted that no interference is required against the order impugned passed by Judge Small Cause and petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that SCC suit filed by plaintiff/ respondent is still pending before the Judge Small Cause even after expiry of more than 18 years. There is also no dispute about the fact that defence of the petitioner/ defendant has already been struck off by the Judge Small Cause and revision has been dismissed. There is also no dispute about the fact that the application 78-Ga filed under Order 15 Rule 5 (2) C.P.C. has been rejected under the impugned order. 7. It is material to mention that SCC suit filed by landlord in the year 2007 is pending due to the tactics adopted by the tenant since 2007. It is also material to mention that on the application of the landlord, the defence of the tenant has been struck off by the Judge Small Cause vide order dated 30.8.2024 in view of the provisions contained under the law. Perusal of relevant portion of order dated 30.8.2024 will be relevant which is as under:- ""प्ऴावली के अवलोकन से िविदत है िक ्ऺितवादी ्षारा ्ऺश्नगत मकान का अिन्तम िकराया 30.06.2021 तक का जिरए टैण्डर न्यायालय में जमा कराया है। आदेश 15 िनयम 5 सी०पी०सी० के अनुसार िकरायेदार को ्ऺत्येक माह का िकराया 7 तारीख तक न्यायालय में जमा कराना अिनवायर् होता है परन्तु ्ऺितवादी के ्षारा िदनांक 30.06.2021 के प्ाात का कोई िकराया न्यायालय में जमा नहीं कराया जा रहा है तथा जो िकराया जमा भी कराया गया है उसमें भी अिनयिम्तता बरती गयी है िजससे यह दिशत होता है िक ्ऺितवादी ्षारा उ्व आदेश का अनुपालन सुिनि्ात नहीं िकया जा रहा है तथा ्ऺितवादी िकराया जमा िकये िबना ही िववािदत सम्पि्त पर कािबज चला आ रहा है। माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ने अपनी िविध्िवस्था Asha Rani Gupta Vs Vineet Kumar] 2022 SCC Online SC 829 में यह अवधािरत िकया गया है, िक "The Supreme Court has observed that a defendant cannot enjoy the property during pendency of suit without depositing the amount of rent/damages by merely denying the relationship of landlord& tenant/lessor & lessee-" 4 A227 No. 10008 of 2025 माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय की िविध्िवस्था में यह स्प्ि होता है िक यिद ्ऺितवादी दौरान वाद िकरायेदारी से इन्कार करता है तब भी उसके ्षारा न्यायालय में िकराया जमा अिनवायर् है। जबिक ्ऺितवादी ने अपने ्ऺितवादप्ऴ में िकरायेदार होना स्वीकार िकया है िफर भी उसके ्षारा िकराया जमा करने में अिनयिम्तता बरती गयी है, ऐसी दशा में वादी का ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ स्वीकार िकए जाने योग्य है। आदेश ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ 61 ग अंतगर्त आदेश 15 िनयम 5 सी०पी०सी० स्वीकार िकया जाता है। ्ऺितवादी का िडफे न्स स््िक ऑफ िकया जाता है। प्ऴाक्ली वास्ते िजरह पी०डब्लू०-1 िदनाक 06.09.2024 को पेश हो। 03.09.2024 ह०अ० लघुवाद न्यायाधीश, जनपद मेरठ। आज यह एफ0ओ0 139ग न्याय तय की शुदा व हस्ता्षर ्षारा तैयार िकया जाकर शािमल प्ऴावली हुआ। ह०अ० !! सत्य्ऺितिलिप !!" 8. Perusal of order dated 30.8.2024 as quoted above fully demonstrate that petitioner's defence has rightly struck off by Judge Small Cause. 9. It is material to mention that last opportunity given by this Court to file application/ representation as provided under Order 15 Rule 5 (2) C.P.C. has not been availed within the time fixed by this Court, as such, the discretion cannot be exercised in favour of petitioner/ defendant/ tenant in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned orders dated 30.8.2024, 21.5.2025 and 12.2.2025. The instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is dismissed and SCC suit No. 3 of 2007 shall be decided in accordance with 5 A227 No. 10008 of 2025 law by Judge Small Cause Court expeditiously preferably within period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. September 15, 2025 Vandana Y. (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad