Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Karnataka High Court
Karnataka High Court Takes Note Of Tenant’s Conduct Projecting Obstinate Non-Compliance, Allows Application Under Order VI Rule 16 CPC to Strike Off Defence
|The petitioners/plaintiffs approached the Karnataka High Court challenging an order rejecting their application filed under Order VI Rule 16 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to strike off the defence of the defendant.
While dealing with a case of landlord-tenant dispute, the Karnataka High Court has allowed the landlord’s application to strike off the defence of the defendant-tenant. The High Court noted that the conduct of the tenant projected obstinate non-compliance.
The petitioners/plaintiffs approached the High Court challenging an order rejecting their application filed under Order VI Rule 16 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to strike off the defence of the defendant.
The Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “This Court is not unmindful of the fact that the power to strike off a defence must be exercised with restraint and circumspection. Yet, in the present circumstance, where the orders of this Court and the trial Court have been wilfully ignored and no cogent justification exists for such non-compliance, indulgence would tantamount to rewarding disobedience.”
“The coordinate Bench of this Court in 2024 while not entertaining the appeal, also directed deposit of rent. Not a rupee is paid. Therefore, the application under Order VI Rule 16 CPC had to be allowed and the defence of the defendant to be struck off, only on the conduct of the defendant, projecting obstinate non-compliance”, it held.
Advocate Shweta Krishnappa represented the Petitioner while Advocate T.H. Avin represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioners, owners of the suit-scheduled property, let it out on tenancy to the respondent, who runs a pre-school. The tenant defaulted in the payment of rents. The petitioners instituted an eviction suit and filed two applications – one seeking a temporary injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from continuing further in the suit property for deposit of rents, and another one for the deposit of rents. The defendant filed her written statement and counterclaim. The petitioners also filed objections to the counterclaim filed by the defendant. Earlier to it, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the CPC, seeking a direction to deposit arrears of rent, was filed by the plaintiffs.
The Court directed the respondent to pay arrears of rent at ₹82,431 per month from June 1, 2020, to August 30, 2022. The order directing the deposit of rent was called in question before the Court, but the appeal came to be dismissed, and the rent was not paid. Therefore, the petitioners then preferred an application under Order VI Rule 16 seeking the trial Court to strike off the defence of the respondent that was taken in the written statement on her failure to pay and comply with the earlier order. The Court rejected the application for a striking off defence. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The Bench took a note of a letter by the respondent and said, “The letter written by the respondent only exacerbates the indignity of the situation, wherein she states that she would vacate peacefully, provided the landlords-plaintiffs forego the claim for rent. In the considered view of the Court,it is a proposal that smacks of audacity, rather than remorse.”
Jurisprudence is replete with precedents that reiterate that a litigant who defies the interim order/directions of the Court is undeserving of any indulgence”, it said while referring to the judgment in Aero Traders (P) Limited V. Ravinder Kumar Suri (2004).
Referring to a catena of judgments of the Apex Court and various High Courts, the Bench observed, “...judicial discretion must not be exercised in favour of a party indulging in contumacious defiance. No party has a right to be heard on merits, when interim orders are violated with impunity.”
It was further noticed that the defendant, for the last 5 years, has not paid a rupee of rent. In the year 2023, the Court directed the deposit of rent, but it was not paid. The coordinate Bench had also directed the deposit of rent, but it still remained unpaid. Therefore, the application under Order VI Rule 16 CPC had to be allowed and the defence of the defendant to be struck off, only on the conduct of the defendant, projecting obstinate non-compliance.
Thus, allowing the Petition, the Bench ordered the defence of the defendant to be struck off.
Cause Title: Mr. Venugopal Krishnamurthy v. Smt.M. Tejaswini (Writ Petition No.21479 of 2024 (GM - CPC)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate Shweta Krishnappa
Respondent: Advocate T.H. Avin