Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Restores Tenant’s Right to Fair Hearing in Rent Dispute

Facts of the Case

The appellants (defendants) were tenants of the State of Uttarakhand in a property owned by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction in 2001, alleging non-payment of rent fixed at ₹86,232/month by a 1999 court order. Despite service of summons, the defendants sought repeated adjournments to file their written statement. On April 22, 2002, the trial court ordered the suit to proceed ex parte after denying further adjournments. Subsequently, on May 3, 2002, the court struck off the defendants’ defence without notice, and an ex parte decree was passed on August 24, 2002. The defendants challenged the decree, but the High Court dismissed their revision.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex parte decree and the order striking off the defense violated principles of natural justice.
2. Whether the defendants were denied a fair opportunity to defend the suit.
3. The legality of amending the plaint without serving the defendants.

Arguments

• Defendants: Contended that the trial court acted illegally by:
  • Preponing the hearing date (May 3, 2002) without notice.
  • Striking off their defence without granting a hearing.
  • Allowing plaint amendments without serving them a copy.
• Plaintiffs: Argued that the defendant’s conduct was dilatory and justified the ex parte proceedings.

Court’s Reasoning & Judgment

The Supreme Court, led by Justice Abhay S. Oka, held:

1. Violation of Natural Justice: The trial court’s actions—striking off the defence without notice and amending the plaint without serving the defendants—were illegal. Even in ex parte proceedings, minimal rights (e.g., cross-examination, challenging jurisdictional defects) cannot be extinguished (Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal relied upon).
2. Procedural Illegality: Fixing a hearing date (May 30, 2002) and then advancing it (May 3, 2002) without notice deprived the defendants of a fair chance to contest the application.
3. Restitution & Conditions:
   • The ex parte decree was set aside, and the suit was restored to the trial court.
   • The defendants were directed to deposit ₹1,00,000/month (adjusted against earlier payments) as a condition for relief.
   • Non-compliance would revive the ex parte decree.

Conclusion

The judgment underscores that procedural fairness is non-negotiable, even in delayed litigation. The Court balanced restitution with accountability, ensuring the defendants’ right to defend while imposing costs for their earlier defaults. The ruling reaffirms that judicial shortcuts cannot override fundamental justice.

Key Takeaway: Courts must ensure litigants are heard before adverse orders, and ex parte decrees obtained unfairly will not stand.

Stay informed with insights that matter. Follow us for more updates on key legal developments.