Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—Both these revisions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment as common questions of law and facts are involved.

2. Civil Revision No. 376 of 2008 was treated by the learned counsel for the parties as lead case and the arguments were advanced with reference to the facts of that case and was understood that the same will hold good also in the connected civil revision.

3. Both these revisions are directed against the orders dated 13th of August, 2008 passed separately in two SCC Suit Nos. 11 of 2006 and 12 of 2006.

4. The revision No. 376 of 2008 arises out of original suit No. 12 of 2006.

5. The aforestated two suits have been instituted by the applicants herein against the defendant opposite parties for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment. The plaintiff is owner and landlord of factory on plot No. B-27, Sector-3 NOIDA measuring 788.54 Sq. Meters. On 1st of June, 2000 it was given on rent to M/s. Swastik Udyog and to its sister concern namely M/s. Dharam Pal Satya Pal and Ridhi Sidhi Logistic. It was agreed upon that M/s. Dharam Pal Satyapal will pay Rs. 39,000/- per month as rent while Swastik Udyog will pay Rs. 1,500/- per month and Ridhi Sidhi will pay Rs. 2,500/- per month.

6. The suits giving rise to the present revisions have been instituted on the allegations that the defendant tenant has not paid the rent after 31st of March, 2003 and they are defaulters since 1st of April, 2003. The tenancy has been determined by giving a notice dated 24th of March, 2006.

7. In reply, the defendant tenant came out with the case that on 6th of December, 2002, an agreement of sale was entered into between the parties for the sale of the tenanted property for a total consideration of Rs. 60 Lakhs, out of which a sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs was given as advance money. The execution of the sale-deed was stipulated to take place up to 31st of December, 2003 or earlier. The sale-deed has not been executed by the plaintiff in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ceased to exist after the execution of the aforesaid agreement of sale.

8. It is not necessary for the purposes of present revisions to notice the other pleas set out in the written statement. Suffice it to say that besides the allegation that the claim of the plaintiff for recovery of rent is hopelessly barred by time.

9. The aforesaid two suits are still pending adjudication before the trial Court.

10. The applications to strike off the defence giving rise to the present revisions, under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC as amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh, were filed by the plaintiff on the allegations that in suit No. 12 of 2006 the defendant is tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/- and has not paid it since 1st of June, 2003. It has also not deposited any rent and damages either on the first date of hearing or thereafter during the pendency of the suit. The said applications were opposed on identical pleas that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and as such the question of deposit of rent does not arise. Further in paragraph 3 it was asserted that a sale agreement dated 6th of December, 2002 is there in favour of M/s. Dharam Pal Satya Pal Limited and after execution of the sale agreement the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has come to an end and M/s. Dharam Pal Satya Pal has become the landlord of the defendant.

11. The trial Court by the order under revision took the view that in view of the sale agreement dated 6th of December, 2002 between the parties, it is not appropriate to decide the applications in question at this stage. It would be appropriate to consider the said applications after the evidence of parties.

12. Sri H.N. Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff landlord submitted that the application under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. should have been decided at the initial stage and po