Dharmendra Kalra & Ors. v. Kulvinder Singh Bhatia, 2026

The dispute arose out of a tenancy dispute involving two halls where the respondent-tenant was operating “Gyan Vaisnav Hotel.”

According to the landlords, the monthly rent was revised to Rs. 25,000 in September 2020.

The tenant allegedly defaulted in payment of rent from November 2020 onwards.

The landlords issued a notice terminating tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Thereafter, the landlords instituted a suit before the Small Causes Court seeking eviction and recovery of arrears of rent.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the landlords filed an application under Order XV Rule 5 CPC seeking striking off the tenant’s defence due to non-deposit of rent.

The Trial Court allowed the application on 5 August 2023 and struck off the tenant’s defence.

The tenant challenged the order before the High Court.

The High Court partly allowed the revision petition and directed the tenant to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 1,500 per month instead of Rs. 25,000.

The High Court also warned that failure to deposit the amount within the stipulated period would result in striking off the defence.

Subsequently, despite the tenant’s default, the High Court granted further extension of time on the ground that the local counsel had gone abroad.

Aggrieved by these developments, the landlords approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that the power to strike off a tenant’s defence under Order XV Rule 5 CPC should not be exercised mechanically.

The Court observed that determination of the “first date of hearing” is a foundational requirement before invoking Order XV Rule 5 CPC.

The Court clarified that the “first date of hearing” means the date on which the court applies its judicial mind to the controversy involved in the suit and not merely a date fixed for procedural compliance.

The Supreme Court held that a prayer for striking off the defence cannot be considered before determining the first date of hearing.

The Court emphasized that proper service of notice and adequate opportunity to the tenant are essential requirements before passing such an order.

The Supreme Court observed that the Trial Court failed to examine whether the tenant’s default was wilful or bona fide.

The Court reiterated that striking off the defence should be resorted to only in cases involving deliberate default or contumacious conduct.

The Supreme Court also criticised the approach of the High Court for granting extension of time after imposing a conditional direction regarding deposit of rent.

The Court held that the High Court failed to reconcile its later indulgence with its earlier conditional order.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court and the High Court.

The matter was remitted back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.

The Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to:

• Determine the “first date of hearing”;

• Examine due compliance or substantial compliance with Order XV Rule 5 CPC;

• Determine whether the default was wilful or bona fide;

• Pass a reasoned order after granting adequate opportunity to both parties.

The Court clarified the interpretation of the expression “first date of hearing,” which is often disputed in rent litigation.

By insisting on determination of the first date of hearing, the Court ensured that procedural requirements under Order XV Rule 5 CPC are not misapplied prematurely.

The judgment emphasizes that procedural provisions should not be used as instruments of injustice.

The Court recognised that striking off a defence has serious civil consequences because it substantially weakens the tenant’s ability to contest eviction proceedings.

The ruling strengthens judicial discretion by requiring courts to examine substantial compliance and the intention behind the alleged default.

The judgment discourages a rigid and hyper-technical interpretation of procedural law.

The Court’s insistence on examining whether the default was wilful or bona fide aligns with broader equitable principles of fair adjudication.

The criticism of the High Court highlights the importance of consistency in judicial orders, especially where conditional relief has already been granted.

The judgment is likely to influence future landlord-tenant disputes by requiring courts to carefully evaluate procedural prerequisites before striking off a tenant’s defence.

The decision contributes to jurisprudence emphasizing that procedural rules are intended to advance justice rather than defeat substantive rights.