1985 (4) TMI 330 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court reinstates trial court order, defense to continue. Case remanded for prompt resolution.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and reinstated the trial court's order, allowing the defense to continue in the proceedings. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the tenant's failure to comply with the court's order u/s 11A of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 mandates striking off the defense.2. Interpretation of the term 'shall' in the context of Section 11A.3. The impact of setting aside an ex-parte decree on the revival of earlier court directions.Summary:Issue 1: Tenant's Failure to Comply with Court's Order u/s 11AThe respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the appellant-defendant on the ground of default in rent payment. The court directed the appellant to deposit arrears and future rent u/s 11A. The appellant's failure to comply led the respondent to seek striking off the defense. The trial court initially rejected this, but the High Court reversed the decision, mandating the defense be struck off due to non-compliance.Issue 2: Interpretation of 'Shall' in Section 11AThe High Court interpreted 'shall' in Section 11A as mandatory, implying automatic striking off the defense upon non-compliance. However, the Supreme Court held that 'shall' should be read as 'may,' making the provision directory, not imperative. This interpretation allows the court discretion to relieve against defaults, especially if they are technical, unintended, or due to circumstances beyond control.Issue 3: Impact of Setting Aside Ex-Parte DecreeThe trial court's view that the direction for deposit did not revive after setting aside the ex-parte decree was disapproved by the High Court. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court on this point but restored the trial court's order refusing to strike off the defense, noting that the tenant had deposited all arrears and the irregularity was not severe enough to warrant striking off the defense.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the trial court's order, allowing the defense to be part of the proceedings. The case was remitted to the trial court for expedited disposal within six months. The respondent's second suit for eviction on personal grounds, if pending, should be heard along with the current suit. Each party bears its own costs in the High Court and Supreme Court, with trial court costs dependent on the suit's outcome. Appeal allowed.