1945 (1) TMI 19 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Circumstances for ordering security or payment into Court as a condition precedent for granting leave to defend.
2. Validity of the defendant's tenancy claims and arrears of rent.
3. Evaluation of the defendant's affidavit and the defense's credibility.
4. Application of Chap. XIIIA of the Rules of the High Court and corresponding English Rules.
5. Imposition of conditions for leave to defend based on the nature of the defense.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Circumstances for Ordering Security or Payment into Court as a Condition Precedent for Granting Leave to Defend:
The judgment examines the circumstances under which an order for security or payment into Court can be made as a condition precedent to granting leave to the defendant to defend the suit. The Court refers to Chap. XIIIA of the Rules of the High Court, which is adapted from O. 14 of the English Rules. The Court emphasizes that such conditions should only be imposed when the defense is not convincing or plausible. Mr. Sett argued that if the defendant made out a good defense, he should have unconditional leave, but if the defense was not very convincing, security should be required. The Court refers to several English cases, including Runnacles v. Mesquita and Ray v. Barker, which highlight the need for careful discretion in imposing such conditions.

2. Validity of the Defendant's Tenancy Claims and Arrears of Rent:
The suit involves a claim for ejectment, arrears of rent, and mesne profits. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant occupied the premises as a monthly tenant and stopped paying rent after the death of one of the landlords. The defendant, however, contends that the premises were let out to him by Sm. Ashalata Debi and that he had made repairs and installations at his own cost, which he was to recoup from the rent. The Court notes the conflicting claims and the need for a full trial to resolve these issues.

3. Evaluation of the Defendant's Affidavit and the Defense's Credibility:
The defendant's affidavit denies any agreement with the plaintiffs and claims that the premises were let out by Sm. Ashalata Debi. The plaintiffs' affidavits counter these claims, suggesting that the defendant's defense is fabricated. The Court considers the discrepancies and the lack of documentary evidence supporting the plaintiffs' claims. The Court concludes that while the plaintiffs may have a stronger case, the defense is not wholly sham or illusory, warranting a trial.

4. Application of Chap. XIIIA of the Rules of the High Court and Corresponding English Rules:
The judgment extensively discusses the interpretation of Chap. XIIIA of the Rules of the High Court, which corresponds to O. 14 of the English Rules. The Court refers to several English cases to elucidate the principles governing summary judgments and the imposition of conditions for leave to defend. The Court emphasizes that the rules should be applied carefully to avoid denying a defendant the opportunity to defend due to poverty or other reasons.

5. Imposition of Conditions for Leave to Defend Based on the Nature of the Defense:
The Court outlines the principles for imposing conditions for leave to defend. If the defense is bona fide and raises a triable issue, unconditional leave should be granted. If the defense is illusory or sham, the plaintiff may be entitled to judgment, but the Court may show mercy by allowing the defense to proceed if the amount claimed is secured. The Court refers to the case of Jacobs v. Booth's Distillery Co., which underscores the need for caution in imposing conditions that may render the leave to defend illusory.

Conclusion:
The Court concludes that the defendant has raised a triable issue and is entitled to unconditional leave to defend the suit. The Court directs the filing of a written statement and affidavits of documents, with the suit to appear in the appropriate prospective list. The costs of the application will be the defendant's costs in the cause, certified for counsel.