Can a Tenant's Defence Be Struck Off for Non-Payment of Rent? Supreme Court Remands Case

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India recently addressed the critical issue of whether a tenant's defence can be struck off due to non-payment of rent, emphasizing the need for judicial discretion in such matters. The case, Dharmendra Kalra & Ors. vs Kulvinder Singh Bhatia, highlights the balance between enforcing tenancy laws and ensuring justice for tenants.

Case Background

The dispute arose from a tenancy agreement involving the appellants, Dharmendra Kalra and others, and the respondent, Kulvinder Singh Bhatia. The appellants, as landlords, had leased out premises to the respondent, who operated a hotel. Following a revision in rent, the respondent failed to pay rent from November 2020 to June 2021, leading the appellants to terminate the tenancy and file a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears.

The trial court initially allowed ex-parte proceedings against the respondent due to his absence. However, upon the respondent's application to recall the ex-parte order, the trial court permitted him to participate in the proceedings. The appellants subsequently filed an application under Order XV Rule 5 of the CPC, seeking to strike off the respondent's defence for failing to comply with the mandatory requirement of depositing rent before the first hearing.

What The Lower Authorities Held

The trial court ruled in favour of the appellants, striking off the respondent's defence due to non-compliance with Order XV Rule 5. The respondent's subsequent appeal to the High Court of Allahabad resulted in a reversal of the trial court's decision. The High Court allowed the respondent to deposit the overdue rent and extended the time for compliance, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court, while reviewing the case, underscored the importance of judicial discretion in applying Order XV Rule 5 CPC. The court noted that while the provision mandates the deposit of rent, it does not obligate the court to automatically strike off a defence in every instance of default. The court emphasized that the consequences of striking off a defence are severe and should not be applied mechanically.

The court referred to previous judgments, including Bimal Chand Jain v. Sri Gopal Agarwal, which clarified that the court must consider whether there has been substantial compliance with the requirements of Order XV Rule 5 and whether the default was wilful or bona fide. The court reiterated that the power to strike off a defence is discretionary and should be exercised judiciously, taking into account the specific circumstances of each case.

Statutory Interpretation

Order XV Rule 5 of the CPC is designed to ensure that tenants do not remain in possession of rented premises without fulfilling their obligation to pay rent. However, the Supreme Court highlighted that the provision, while mandatory in form, confers a degree of discretion upon the court. The court must assess the nature of the default and the tenant's conduct before deciding to impose the penalty of striking off the defence.

Constitutional or Policy Context

The Supreme Court's ruling aligns with the broader principles of justice and fairness in legal proceedings. The court acknowledged that procedural laws should serve to advance justice rather than create obstacles for parties. This perspective is particularly relevant in tenancy disputes, where the balance between landlord rights and tenant protections is crucial.

Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment is significant for legal practitioners and tenants alike, as it clarifies the application of Order XV Rule 5 CPC and reinforces the necessity of judicial discretion in tenancy matters. It serves as a reminder that while landlords have rights to enforce rent payments, tenants also have protections against harsh penalties that may arise from procedural defaults.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders and remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration. The trial court is instructed to determine the 'first date of hearing,' assess compliance with Order XV Rule 5, and consider the nature of any defaults before making a reasoned decision.

Case Details

• Case Title: Dharmendra Kalra & Ors. vs Kulvinder Singh Bhatia
• Citation: 2026 INSC 492 NON-REPORTABLE
• Court: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
• Bench: S.V.N. BHATTI, J. & PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
• Date of Judgment: 2026-05-15