Tenant’s Defence Cannot Be Struck Off Mechanically Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Without Determining the First Date of Hearing and Nature of Default
Case Name: Dharmendra Kalra & Ors. v. Kulvinder Singh Bhatia
Citation: 2026 INSC 492
Date of Judgment/Order: 15 May 2026
Bench: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Held: The Supreme Court held that the drastic consequence of striking off a tenant’s defence under Order XV Rule 5 CPC cannot be imposed mechanically merely because of delay or irregularity in deposit of rent. The Court reiterated that though the provision is mandatory in form, it confers judicial discretion and requires the Court to examine whether there has been substantial compliance, whether the tenant’s conduct was wilful or contumacious, and whether sufficient cause exists for the default. The Court further held that before invoking Order XV Rule 5 CPC, the Trial Court must clearly determine the “first date of hearing” in accordance with settled law, namely the date on which the Court applies its mind to the controversy and not merely a procedural date. The Court emphasized that procedural laws are intended to advance justice and not defeat it through technical or punitive approaches.
Summary: The dispute arose out of eviction and arrears proceedings instituted by the landlords against the tenant running “Gyan Vaisnav Hotel” in Kanpur. The landlords alleged default in payment of rent after enhancement of monthly rent to INR 25,000 from September 2020 onwards. The tenant failed to deposit arrears within the timelines prescribed under Order XV Rule 5 CPC, leading the Trial Court to strike off the tenant’s defence. The tenant challenged the order before the Allahabad High Court, which granted an opportunity to deposit rent subject to conditions and later extended the time for compliance after a short delay allegedly caused by the tenant’s counsel being abroad. The landlords approached the Supreme Court contending that the High Court could not extend time contrary to its earlier conditional order and that the tenant’s defence deserved to be struck off for deliberate non-compliance. The Supreme Court examined the jurisprudence governing Order XV Rule 5 CPC and relied upon precedents including Bimal Chand Jain v. Sri Gopal Agarwal, Santosh Mehta v. Om Prakash, Siraj Ahmad Siddiqui v. Prem Nath Kapoor, and Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India. The Court observed that the Trial Court had failed to conclusively determine foundational aspects such as the actual “first date of hearing,” proper opportunity, and whether the tenant’s default was wilful or merely procedural. The Court also noted that the High Court, while extending time, had not adequately reconciled the extension with its earlier conditional order.
Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders passed by both the Trial Court and the Allahabad High Court and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication of the application under Order XV Rule 5 CPC. The Trial Court was directed to determine the first date of hearing in accordance with law, examine whether there had been due or substantial compliance with the statutory requirements, assess whether the default was wilful or bona fide, and thereafter pass a reasoned order after affording adequate opportunity to both parties. The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the rival claims and directed the Trial Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously, preferably within six months. Pending applications stood disposed of.