Tenant's Application u/s 7(2) of WBPT Act 1999 was dismissed since it did not accompany deposit of arrear rent with mandatory 10% interest. Court also held that Sec 5 of Limitation Act has no applicability, following the reported judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2019 (10) SCC 660. As a result, Landlord's Application u/s 7(3) was allowed the Tenant's defence was struck off. Following Order XIV Rule 1(6), since there is no defence in the suit, Court cannot frame any issues. Does this not mean that Landlord should get immediate judgement for eviction? Can you guide me to any guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court / High Court in such a situation?
First answer received in 10 minutes.
Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.
Landlord has to prove his case by filing his evidence affidavit
The tenant still can cross examine the landlord and his witnesses to impeach their credibility, despite the tenant's defence having been struck off
As there are no pleadings of the tenant as his defense is struck off, he cannot prove his case by filing evidence affidavit of himself and of his witnesses if any
Thereafter there will be final arguments and then judgment
Section 7 (3) provides that in n the circumstances state therein, the Civil Judge shall order the defence against delivery of possession to be struck out and “shall proceed with the hearing of the suit.” Section 7 pertains to suit filed by landlord seeking eviction on the ground of default of tenant to pay the rent/arrears of rent. Even when defense of tenant is struck off, that judge has to ascertain the merit of the claim of landlord, hence he has to proceed with hearing of suit. It is just matter of procedure, eventually after one hearing landlord will get decree of eviction.
As per law, the defendant can make a representation.
In fact it's more advantageous from the point of view of the defendant.
Even when a defense is struck off, the defendant is entitled to appear, cross examine the plaintiff's witness and submit that even on the basis of the evidence of the plaintiff a decree cannot be passed against him whereas if it is ordered in accordance with section 11(4) that he shall not be entitled to appear in or defend the suit except with the leave of the court, he is placed at a greater disadvantage.
The order is not therefore one without jurisdiction.
You have to file your affidavit of evidence
2) tenant can cross examine you
3) court after hearing arguments would pronounce judgment of eviction
- Yes, it means that Landlord will get immediate judgment for eviction
- The court has not found any material evidence in your support , and due to that reason the court not framing the issues and strike off the defense, and may proceed for passing its judgment of the petition.
- You can appeal against the said order of the court before the Higher court.
Yes but it will be only after judge passes the judgement and decree and opponent doesn't go to appeal
Dear Client,
The Supreme Court opined in Bijay Kumar Singh v. Amit Kumar Chamariya, (2019) 10 SCC 660 to say that if an act is required to be performed by a private person within a stipulated time, the same would ordinarily be mandated. But when a public functionary is required to perform a public function within a time frame, the same will be held to be jurisdictional unless the consequences thereof are specified. It can certainly be concluded that your eviction case is going strong so hopefully you might obtain an eviction order soon.
Thanks & Regards
