Judgment Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff, Ladly Prasad, filed a suit in the court of the Munsif, Ghaziabad, seeking eviction of the defendants from disputed premises and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were tenants at a monthly rent of Rs. 150 and that their tenancy had been terminated by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The defendants contested the suit, pleading inter alia that the termination notice was illegal, the tenancy had not been terminated in law, and no rent was due. Necessary issues were framed in the suit.

While the suit was pending, the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972) inserted Rule 5 into Order XV of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff applied to have the defendants' defence struck off and for an ex parte decree under Order XV, Rule 5 on the ground that the defendants had failed to deposit arrears and monthly amounts as required by that Rule. The defendants opposed that application, contending Rule 5 did not apply and, alternatively, seeking 15 days' time to comply if Rule 5 were held applicable.

The learned Munsif held that Order XV, Rule 5 applied and allowed the defendants fifteen days to deposit the dues. The Additional District Judge dismissed the defendants' revision and upheld the trial court's order. The defendants then filed a petition in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Single Judge, without deciding the merits of the underlying tenancy dispute, directed that if the petitioners paid the amount of rent they said was due up to February 28, 1975 within one month (or before the first day of hearing at the trial court) the trial court would not strike off their defence; the Single Judge also directed continued monthly deposits as required by Rule 5. The plaintiff (appellant) appealed against the Single Judge's order to the court which delivered the opinion summarized here.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether Order XV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (as inserted by the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972) was attracted in the suit between lessor and lessee at the stage reached in the trial court.
2. Whether the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, had competence to entertain the petition challenging the trial and revision court orders (i.e., whether Article 226 was a proper remedy in the circumstances).
3. Whether the Single Judge had jurisdiction under Article 226 to grant further time to the defendants/petitioners to comply with the deposit requirements imposed by the subordinate courts, or whether the Single Judge could only quash or affirm the impugned orders.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's (Plaintiff's) Arguments

• The decisions of the courts below that Rule 5 applied to the suit were legally correct.
• The writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable because the appropriate remedies under the Code (appeal/revision/review) had been or could be invoked; Article 226 should not be used as a substitute for statutory remedies such as Section 115 of the Code.
• The Single Judge had no jurisdiction to grant the petitioners additional time to make the deposits; the Single Judge could not, in effect, extend the time granted by the courts below or give a fresh opportunity to comply.

Respondents' (Defendants/Petitioners') Arguments

• Rule 5 of Order XV did not apply because the tenancy had not been validly determined and there was a dispute about whether any rent was due; therefore the condition precedent for invoking Rule 5 was absent.
• The defendants also argued that if Rule 5 were held applicable, they should be granted 15 days' time to make the requisite deposit (i.e., an application for extension of time and security was made).
• In the High Court petition, the defendants sought relief that, if they made the deposits by a date fixed by the Single Judge, the trial court should not strike off their defence; the Single Judge issued directions consistent with that form of relief.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carried out a textual and procedural analysis of Order XV, Rule 5 and of the scope of Article 226 jurisdiction. The key points of the court's reasoning are:

1. Interpretation and Stage of Application of Rule 5:
   • Rule 5 applies to suits by a lessor for eviction of a lessee after determination of the lease and for recovery of rent or compensation for use and occupation.
   • Order XV deals with disposal of the suit at the first hearing; that stage is reached after the defendant has filed his written statement, parties may have been examined under Order X to clarify points, documents produced, admissions and denials recorded, and necessary issues framed under Order XIV. In short, Rule 5 comes into play after issues are framed and before the parties lead evidence on those issues.
   • Because Rule 5 is engaged at that procedural stage, the court at that point is not required to decide disputed questions of fact (e.g., whether the lease was validly terminated or whether any rent is due) — such findings require evidence and testimony to be led later in the trial.
2. Nature of the Deposit Obligation under Rule 5:
   • The defendant must deposit the entire amount of rent or compensation for use and occupation that he admits to be due at or before the first hearing (or the first hearing after the rule's commencement, for suits instituted earlier).
   • The defendant must then continue to deposit regularly the monthly amount at the rate he admits throughout the suit.
   • If no amount is admitted to be due by the defendant, he is not required to make any deposit under Rule 5.
   • The court cannot, under Rule 5, compel the defendant to deposit amounts the defendant disputes; the rule applies only to amounts admitted by the defendant.
   • Consequences for non-compliance are discretionary: the court may refuse to entertain any defence or strike off the defence for default, but only after considering any representation by the defendant and unless it allows further time on security being furnished.
3. Application to the Present Case:
   • In the present case there was no dispute about the rate of rent (Rs. 150), and some amount was admitted to be due (the defendants had pleaded that the plaintiff refused tender and then the rent was remitted by money order).
   • Consequently the nature of the suit and the procedural stage satisfied the conditions for invoking Rule 5; the learned Munsif was therefore correct in holding Rule 5 attracted.
   • The learned Munsif, after considering circumstances, permissibly granted time (fifteen days) for deposit—Rule 5 allows the court discretion to grant further time on security where justified.
4. Competence and Limits of Article 226 in the Circumstances:
   • The court accepted the appellant's contention that the writ petition was, in principle, not a competent substitute for remedies under the Code. The extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 is not intended to correct ordinary errors of law or fact made by subordinate courts during the progress of a suit; such errors are remediable by appeal, revision or review under the Code.
   • When statutory procedures provide a remedy and the proceedings have reached finality within that scheme (for example, after disposal by a court from which no further statutory revision lies), Article 226 should not ordinarily be invoked merely to correct an error; interference is reserved for exceptional cases of grave injustice.
   • In this case the order of the Additional District Judge finally disposed of the matter in dispute and Section 115 or other further revision to this Court was not available; therefore Article 226 was not an appropriate substitute.
   • Even assuming Article 226 were competent, the Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction by effectively granting further time to the petitioners to make the deposit. Under Article 226 the Single Judge could quash or affirm the impugned orders but could not lawfully exercise the power to extend time or grant a fresh opportunity solely by way of writ relief in order to permit compliance.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appellate court allowed the appeal. The court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition.

DISPOSITION: The appeal is allowed; the Single Judge's order is set aside; the writ petition is dismissed; the appellant is awarded costs of the appeal and of the writ petition.

Implications:

• Direct effect on the parties: The High Court's direction that effectively extended time for deposit and protected the defendants' defence is vacated; the earlier orders of the trial court and the Additional District Judge (which had applied Rule 5 and granted a time-limited opportunity for deposit) remain the operative determinations for the matter as described in this opinion.
• Scope of Rule 5 clarified by the court: Rule 5 applies at the first-hearing stage after issues are framed and requires deposit only of amounts admitted by the defendant; courts have discretion to grant further time on furnishing security, and are not required to strike off defences mechanically for defaults.
• The opinion underscores that Article 226 is not a routine alternative to statutory remedies under the Code; it should not be used simply to obtain an extension of time or a fresh opportunity to comply with orders of subordinate courts.
• No broader precedent-creating pronouncement beyond the reasoning set out above is identified in the opinion; the decision resolves the dispute between the parties and clarifies the application of Rule 5 in the procedural posture described.