HISAMUL ISLAM SIDDIQUI AND ORS. Vs. JAVED BARKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri M.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the revisionists and Shri Madhur Kant Srivastava, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the opposite parties.

(2.) The revisionists have assailed the order dated 23.09.2015 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (P.C. Act), Lucknow in S.C.C. Suit No.0000226 of 2014, whereby the learned court below has allowed the application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC filed by the opposite parties and has struck off the defence of the revisionists-defendants.

(3.) The facts giving rise to this revision are that the opposite party-plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants-revisionists for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment on the ground that the plaintiff-opposite party had purchased the house in question from Smt. Rehana Javed vide sale-deed dated 17.08.2009 and the defendants-revisionists were tenant on the ground floor of the said house on a monthly rent of Rs.7,500/-. The plaintiff-opposite party initially issued a notice in the year 2014 requiring the defendants-revisionists to pay the rent to him and it was also mentioned in the notice that on failure to pay the rent the tenancy would stand terminated. When the defendants-revisionists neither paid any rent nor vacated the premises, the suit was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party. The defendants-revisionists instead of filing the written statement, moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that there was no relationship of lessee and lessor between the parties and as such the tenancy could not have been terminated and the suit was not maintainable in the Court of Small Causes. This application was dismissed by the learned court below vide order dated 07.05.2015.