High Court affirms strict adherence to procedural compliance under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC for tenants in eviction proceedings; supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 will not disturb trial court orders absent clear illegality. Reaffirms existing law—serving as binding authority on procedural defaults in rent deposit cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPMS/3030/2025 of SUSHIL KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs DINESH CHANDRA GUPTA |
| CNR | UKHC010170612025 |
| Date of Registration | 29-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ PUROHIT |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding on courts within Uttarakhand for compliance with Order 15 Rule 5 CPC in tenancy matters |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure / Rent Control |
| Questions of Law | Whether the trial court’s order striking off defence for non-compliance with Order 15 Rule 5 CPC warrants interference under Article 227. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that where a tenant fails to deposit rent and interest at the rate pleaded by the landlord and as required by Order 15 Rule 5 CPC, the trial court’s order striking off the defence is not illegal. The proper compliance with the rent deposit requirement must align with the terms set forth in the plaint, and the court will not exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere with such orders unless illegality is shown. However, an opportunity may be given to the tenant to rectify the default within a prescribed time. The tenant must strictly comply with procedural requirements to preserve the right to defend in eviction proceedings. The High Court thus affirmed the trial court’s order, making strict compliance with Order 15 Rule 5 CPC mandatory unless the court finds manifest injustice. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The tenant-petitioner deposited rent at Rs.500/- per month, claiming this was the agreed rate, while the landlord had claimed rent at Rs.800/- per month. The trial court struck off the tenant’s defence for failure to deposit at the claimed rate, with applicable interest. The petitioner challenged this order under Article 227, contending his deposit was proper compliance. The High Court found no illegality in the trial court’s order. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Uttarakhand on procedural defaults under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and courts outside Uttarakhand in interpreting Article 227 in rent matters |
| Follows | Strict literal compliance approach to Order 15 Rule 5 CPC as pronounced in prior law |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Strict compliance with the rent amount and interest as pleaded by the landlord is required for tenants seeking to avoid having their defence struck off.
- High Court will not exercise powers under Article 227 to unsettle trial court orders striking off defence unless patent illegality is demonstrated.
- Tenants may be permitted, as a matter of grace, to cure the default within a time frame, but only strict deposit as per the plaint saves defence.
- Lawyers should meticulously ensure rent and interest are deposited strictly according to trial court’s directions and as claimed by the landlord.
- This judgment may be cited when challenging tenant attempts to read down compliance requirements under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined whether the tenant had properly complied with the requirement to deposit rent and interest as required under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC.
- The trial court’s order was based on the landlord’s claim in the plaint that the rent was Rs.800/- per month; the tenant deposited at Rs.500/- per month, which was not accepted as proper compliance.
- The High Court observed there was no illegality in the trial court’s striking off of defence for non-compliance, as the amount deposited must correspond to the amount claimed by the landlord and the plaint’s assertions.
- The High Court specified that its powers under Article 227 do not permit interference except in cases of patent illegality, none of which was found in the facts.
- However, in the interest of justice, the tenant was given a final opportunity to deposit the balance amount, interest, and litigation expenses within two months to continue participating in the suit.
- The approach thus affirms a strict, literal interpretation of procedural requirements under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Asserted that the agreed rent between the parties was Rs.500/- per month.
- Claimed to have made all deposits (arrears and current rent) based on Rs.500/- per month in the trial court.
- Argued that this satisfied Order 15 Rule 5 CPC.
Respondent
- Stated in the plaint that the rent was Rs.800/- per month.
- Argued that compliance under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC required deposit at Rs.800/- per month plus interest at 9%.
- Contended that the tenant’s deposit at Rs.500/- per month was insufficient under the law.
Factual Background
The dispute arose from a tenancy where the landlord claimed rent at the rate of Rs.800/- per month, while the tenant deposited rent at Rs.500/- per month in court. The landlord filed an eviction suit (SCC Suit No.03 of 2024), and upon the tenant’s failure to deposit at the claimed rate with interest, the trial court struck off the defence under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC. The tenant challenged the order via a writ petition under Article 227, arguing compliance based on a different rent rate. The High Court upheld the trial court’s action.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment analyzes Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which mandates timely and adequate deposit of admitted rent and arrears in ongoing suits.
- The provision is interpreted strictly: the tenant’s deposit must match the landlord’s claim as stated in the plaint, not a lesser or self-assessed amount.
- No expansive reading or constitutional interpretation applied; a literal approach is adopted to ensure procedural compliance.
Procedural Innovations
The High Court permitted, as a matter of grace, a further period of two months for the tenant to cure the default by depositing the correct rent, arrears, interest, and litigation expenses in the trial court to preserve the right to contest the proceedings.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on strict compliance with Order 15 Rule 5 CPC is affirmed.