Heard Sri S.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants-tenants and Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel, who has appeared through caveat for landlord respondent.

This revision is directed against order dated 12.02.2013 passed by J.S.C.C./A.D.J., Court No.2, Bhadohi Gyanpur in S.C.C. Suit No.1 of 2006 striking off the defence of the tenants applicants under Order XV Rule 5, C.P.C.

The entire argument of learned counsel for the applicants is that the land in dispute is agricultural land and one Sri Gupta was original bhoomidhar, who illegally let out the land to the respondent in contravention of provisions of Section 156 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and thereupon respondent illegally sublet the same to the applicants hence by virtue of Section 165 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, applicants have become owners/bhoomidhars. Admittedly constructed portion was let out by the respondent to the applicants.

By virtue of Section 116 of Evidence Act, applicants are estopped from denying the title of the landlord respondent.

In the plaint, it has been mentioned that the premises in question together with the land comprised in Plot No.270/1 situate within the municipal limits of Municipal