Karnataka High Court Allows Landlord's Plea To 'Strike Off' Tennant's Defence In Eviction Suit For Defying Order To Pay Outstanding Rent

"Judicial discretion must not be exercised in favour of a party indulging in contumacious defiance. No party has a right to be heard on merits, when interim orders are violated with impunity,” said the Karnataka High Court while quashing a trial court order which rejected a landlord' plea to strike off the tenant's defence in an eviction suit.

Noting that the tenant had not paid arrears of rent for the last five years despite court orders, Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the application filed by property owner Venugopal Krishnamurthy. The bench said,

“This Court is not unmindful of the fact that the power to strike off a defence must be exercised with restraint and circumspection. Yet, in the present circumstance, where the orders of this Court and the trial Court have been wilfully ignored and no cogent justification exists for such non-compliance, indulgence would tantamount to rewarding disobedience.”

Background

The petitioners are the owners of the suit schedule property. They let it out on tenancy to the respondent (M Tejaswini) who operated a pre-school in the name and style of 'Oranges Play Home and Vidyadarpan Tutorials'. The tenant defaulted in payment of rents. Thus they institute a suit for eviction.

On 20-01-2023, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the CPC, seeking a direction to deposit arrears of rent between 01-03-2020 and 30-08-2022 was filed by the plaintiffs. The concerned Court, partly allowed the application on 5 15-07-2023 and directed the respondent to pay arrears of rent at Rs 82,431 per month from 01-06-2020 to 30-08-2022. The concerned Court also noted that the respondent by choosing not to pay rent despite expiry of the prescribed period is illegally squatting over the property.

This order for depositing rent was challenged by the tennant in appeal which was dismissed by the high court. However arrears of rents were not paid by the tennant.

Thus the petitioners filed an application under Order VI Rule 16 asking the trial Court to strike off the defence of the respondent that was taken in the written statement in the eviction suit, on her failure to pay and comply with the order dated 15-07-2023. However, the trial court rejected the application. Against this the landowner approached the high court.

The respondent opposed the plea submitting that she has a case for waiver of rent between 2020 and 2022, as it was during COVID-19 and the school did not function though the respondent was in possession of the property. That issue is not answered by the plaintiffs and the entire arrears has mounted only for the said period. She now is not in a position to pay the rent, unless the school commences. If a reasonable time of two years is granted, the respondent would pay arrears of rent and continue the school.

However, the petitioners contended that the respondent is squatting over the property. They are wanting to bring in their aged parents into the property. The respondent is neither running the school nor paying the rent nor vacating the property.

Findings

The bench noted Order VI Rule 16 CPC permits striking off of the defence in the written statement, if there is violation of the orders passed.

It noted that the petitioners have secured information by filing an application under the Right to Information Act that licence to run the school stood cancelled on 02-03-2023 itself, after which there is no renewal of licence. It is at that point in time, the petitioners prefer the Order VI Rule 16 CPC application to strike off the defence.

It noted that tennat was not willing to clear the arrears of rent even before the high court. 

Referring to a communication made by the respondent to the petitioners, the court said, “It only exacerbates the indignity of the situation, wherein she states that she would vacate peacefully, provided the landlords-plaintiffs forego the claim for rent. In the concerned view of the Court, it is a proposal that smacks of audacity, rather than remorse.”

It emphasized that jurisprudence is replete with precedents that reiterate that a litigant who defies the interim order/directions of the Court is undeserving of any indulgence.

Following which it held, “The defendant, for the last 5 years, has not paid a rupee of rent. In the year 2023, the Court directed deposit of rent; not a rupee of rent is paid. The coordinate Bench of this Court in 2024 while not entertaining the appeal, also directed deposit of rent. Not a rupee is paid. Therefore, the application under Order VI Rule 16 CPC had to be allowed and the defence of the defendant to be struck off, only on the conduct of the defendant, projecting obstinate non-compliance.”

The plea was allowed. 

Case Title: Venugopal Krishnamurthy & ANR AND M Tejaswini

Counsel for petitioners: Advocate Shweta Krishnappa

Counsel for Advocate T H Avin

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 229

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.21479 OF 2024.

Click Here To Read/Download Order