The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders passed by the Allahabad High Court in a landlord-tenant dispute from Kanpur and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration of the application seeking striking off the tenant’s defence under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
A Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held that courts must carefully assess whether the tenant’s default was wilful before invoking the drastic consequence of striking off the defence.
The case arose from eviction proceedings filed by landlords Dharmendra Kalra and others against tenant Kulvinder Singh Bhatia, who was operating “Gyan Vaisnav Hotel” in a commercial property at Kaushalpuri, Kanpur.
Background of the Case
According to the landlords, the monthly rent was revised to ₹25,000 in September 2020, but the tenant allegedly stopped paying rent after October 2020. A legal notice terminating tenancy was issued in July 2021, following which an eviction and arrears recovery suit was filed before the Small Causes Court in Kanpur.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Restores Mumbai Eviction Decree, Says Evidence Can Support Broad Pleadings
During the proceedings, the landlords sought striking off the tenant’s defence under Order XV Rule 5 CPC for failure to deposit rent and arrears within the prescribed time. The trial court allowed the application in August 2023.
However, the Allahabad High Court later granted the tenant time to deposit rent and subsequently extended that deadline after the tenant claimed his counsel was abroad.
What Happened During the Hearing
Before the Supreme Court, the landlords argued that the High Court committed a legal error by granting repeated indulgence despite admitted defaults by the tenant. They contended that the tenant failed to comply with mandatory deposit requirements and that the High Court could not extend time after imposing a conditional deadline.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Rules Mediclaim Amount Cannot Be Deducted From MACT Compensation
On the other hand, the tenant argued that the delay was minimal and bona fide. It was also submitted that striking off the defence is a harsh consequence and cannot be imposed automatically.
Court’s Key Observation
The Supreme Court reiterated that striking off a tenant’s defence is a penal step and courts must exercise discretion cautiously.
Referring to earlier rulings including Bimal Chand Jain v. Sri Gopal Agarwal and Santosh Mehta v. Om Prakash, the Court observed that procedural provisions are meant to advance justice and not punish parties mechanically.
The Bench further noted that the “first date of hearing” must be properly determined before invoking Order XV Rule 5 CPC and said this aspect had not been adequately examined by the trial court.
The Court said:
“Striking off the defence is a serious matter and ought not to be resorted to unless there is a clear case of deliberate default or contumacious conduct on the part of the tenant.”
Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned Allahabad High Court orders and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The trial court has been directed to determine the “first date of hearing, ”examine whether there was substantial compliance with Order XV Rule 5 CPC, and assess whether the default was wilful or bona fide.
The Court requested the trial court to dispose of the matter within six months.
Case Details
Case Title: Dharmendra Kalra & Ors. v. Kulvinder Singh Bhatia
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 7116 of 2025
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Date: May 15, 2026
