RADHE SHYAM CHAURASIYA Vs. BABITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Harsh Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party.

(2.) Present revision has been filed challenging the impugned order dtd. 3/11/2021 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Banda in SCC No. 3 of 2019 (Smt. Babita vs. Radhe Shyam Chaurasiya).

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist no.1 is never the tenant of opposite party, whereas tenancy is with the revisionist no. 2 through her husband since 1989. After institution of Suit No. 3 of 2019, opposite party has filed written statement denying the tenancy of revisionist no.1, but accepted the tenancy of revisionist no. 2. During the pendency of suit proceedings, opposite party has filed an application under Order XV Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short C.P.C.) on 5/1/2021 to struck off the defence, which was replied by the revisionistsdefendants on 2/2/2021. In its reply, it is stated that revisionist no.1 is never the tenant and revisionist no.2 is shown to be sub-tenant, against whom, no rent is claimed, therefore, both are not liable to pay rent as required under Order XV Rule 5 of C.P.C.. Further, revisionist no. 2 is continuously tried to pay rent, but the same was not accepted by the opposite party, therefore, revisionist no.2 sent the rent of shop in question through post office on 30/4/2019. He also stated that revisionist no.2 paid the rent of 32 months from 13/2/2015 to 13/10/2017. Lastly, he submitted that under such facts and circumstances, application has wrongly been allowed and order is bad in law and liable to be set aside.