1. This order shall dispose of the abovementioned two Revision Petitions Bearing Nos. 4125 and 4201 of 1999. These Revision Petitions are against the orders dated 18-5-1999 passed by the trial Court in the separate suits, striking off the defence of the defendant petitioner under Order 15, Rule 5, C.P.C., for non-payment of rent.

2. The facts which are relevant for the decision of Civil Revision No. 4201 of 1999, are that Shyam Sunder, plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for possession/eviction of the defendant-petitioner M/s. Saras Paper Pack and for recovery of arrears of rent, etc. It was alleged in the said suit that the defendant had taken the property on rent, which included property in question involved in this case, vide Rent Agreement dated 11-11-1994 at a monthly rent of Rs. 9750/- for a period of two years w.e.f. 1-10-1994 and on the expiry of the said period of two years the lease period was extended from 1-10-1996 and it was agreed that the said property shall be taken on rent in two portions at the monthly rent of Rs. 9500/- and Rs. 8000/- per month respectively and two separate Rent Agreements were prepared in this regard. It was alleged that the agreement for a portion of the property was between the said plaintiff and the defendant, while the agreement in respect of other portion of the property was between Mrs. Bharti Arora, etc. and the said defendant. It was alleged that the tenancy had been terminated by serving notice. It was alleged that the defendant was in arrears of rent. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff in the present petition filed an application under Order 15, Rule 5, C.P.C.for striking off the defence of the defendant on the ground that defendant had failed to pay the rent for the use and occupation of the premises in question, on the first hearing of the suit or thereafter and thus his defence should be struck off. The said application was contested by the defendant by filing written reply, alleging therein that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that being so, there was no question of payment of rent.

3. The facts which are relevant for the decision of the other Civil Revision Petition No. 4125 of 1999, are that Mrs. Bharti Arora and Mrs. Lalita Arora-plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession/eviction against defendant-petitioner M/s. Saras Paper Pack and for recovery of arrears of rent etc., taking up similar pleas, as were taken in the other suit filed by Sham Sunder, plaintiff. During the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiffs in this case also filed an application under Order 15, Rule 5, C.P.C.for striking off the defence of the defendant on the ground that the defendant had failed to pay the rent for use of occupation of the said property on the first date of hearing and even thereafter and thus the defence be struck off. This application in this suit was also contested by the defendant by filing written reply, alleging therein that the property in question was more than 10 years old and the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act were applicable and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present suit.

4. The learned trial Court, after hearing both sides and after perusal of the record, vide separate orders dated 18-5-1999, passed in both the suits, struck off the defence of the defendant in both the suits under Order 15, Rule 5, C.P.C., on account of non-payment of rent. Aggrieved against these orders of the trial Court, the defendant has filed the abovementioned two Civil Revision Petitions in this Court, challenging both these orders dated 18-5-1999 passed by the trial Court.

5. Notice of Motion was issued in both these cases. I have heard the learned counsel of the parties in both the cases and have gone through the record carefully. Since, common questioning of law and facts are involved in both these cases, both these cases are being disposed of by a single order.

6.