In Brief
A tenant in Aligarh denied his landlord's title after the property changed ownership, but did not deny his status as a tenant. He failed to deposit arrears of rent or make regular monthly deposits as required by Order XV Rule 5 of the CPC. The trial court and revision court struck off his defence. The High Court reversed this, granting the tenant "indulgence" without proper reasoning. The Supreme Court held that while the power to strike off defence is discretionary, it must be exercised with circumspection. A tenant cannot enjoy exemption from paying rent merely by denying the landlord's title. Where a tenant admits he is a tenant but defaults in payment without bonafide reason, the defence must be struck off.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.