S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by order dated 11/13.7.2015 in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 7 of 2009 whereby, defence of the defendants has been struck -off, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioners are defendants in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 7 of 2009. Initially, Techno Agency through its proprietor namely, Firoz Alam was the sole defendant in the suit. The petitioners are legal heirs and successors of original defendant who died in November, 2011. The petitioners were substituted vide order dated 19.2.2014. In the pending suit a petition dated 11.9.2014 was filed for striking -off the defence of the defendants for default in payment of rent in terms of order dated 5.1.2010. The said application has been allowed on 13.7.2015 and consequently, the evidence of the defendants has been closed.
(2.) Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, after the death of the sole defendant, an application for substitution was filed on 19.2.2013 by the plaintiffs. The petitioners though were substituted vide order dated 19.2.2014, continued to deposit rent. The only instance of the alleged default in payment of rent which can be attributed to the petitioners is for the period between March, 2014 and April, 2014. The petitioners deposited rent for March, 2014 to August, 2014 that is, in advance for few months, on 23.6.2014 and therefore, delay in making payment for March, 2014 and June, 2014 was not intentional. The petitioners took a specific plea that for treatment of their mother the defendant namely, Md. Wasim Firoz who was making pairvi in the suit was out of station. In the above facts, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the default was not intentional.
(3.) Per contra, Mr. Ayush Aditya, the learned counsel for the respondents referred to application dated 11.9.2014 and submits that, the defendants committed default in payment of rent on as many as six occasions between the period January, 2013 to April, 2014. The repeated default on the part of the defendants would clearly establish willful default in payment of rent. Supporting the impugned order dated 13.7.2015, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that, the defendants have tried to explain delay between the period 22.4.2014 to 11.6.2014 however, they have failed to explain delay in payment of rent on previous occasions. It is contended that the default committed during the pendency of the suit must be dealt with seriously. Since the defendants have failed to offer sufficient and reasonable cause for default in payment of rent, their defence has rightly been struck -off.;