In ejectment suits, the ownership of the landlord is not relevant, and tenants are obligated to deposit rent during the pendency of the suit, as per the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC.

Mahendra Dayal,J.

1. The petitioner by means of the instant writ petition, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 21.1.2013, passed by the Additional District Judge. Court No.2, Lucknow, dismissing the S.C.C. Revision No.44 of 2011. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the orders dated 1.3.2011 and 27.5.2011, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.2 and Judge Small Causes Court, Lucknow in S.C.C. Revision No. 92 of 2010 and S.C.C. Suit No. 121 of 2006.

2. The brief facts give rise to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner filed a Suit No. 121 of 2006 in the court of Judge Small Causes, Lucknow for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent against the opposite parties no.3 to 5. The suit was contested by the opposite parties no.3 to 5 by filing a written statement on 13.2.2007. The petitioner claimed herself as owner and land lady of House No.250/56 situated at Sankata Devi Land, Yahyaganj, Lucknow, in which the opposite parties no.3 to 5 were tenants @ Rs.50/- per month. The case of the petitioner was that the house was initially let out to the opposite parties no. 3 to 5 for residential purposes but after some time they converted the use from residential to commercial. The petitioner claimed the arrears of rent with effect from 9.11.2013 to 4.11.2006 and damages with effect from 8.11.2006 @ Rs. 800/- per month. The opposite parties no.3 to 5 denied the status of the petitioner as owner and land-lady. They stated that they were not in arrears of rent. In the meantime the petitioner had also filed a suit being Regular Suit No. 267 of 2003 in the Civil Court for declaring her as the owner which was decided on 29.9.2008. After the aforesaid judgment the opposite parties no.3 to 5 filed an application on 4.11.2008 under Section 23 of Provincial Small Cause Act for return of the plaint. However, when the petitioner filed a copy of the judgment before the Small Causes Court, the opposite parties no. 3 to 5 filed an application on 18.9.2009 under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC for permission to deposit the rent. This application was opposed by the petitioner and the petitioner also moved an application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC for striking off the defence of the opposite parties no.3 to 5 on the ground that they have not deposited any rent in the Court. Both the aforesaid applications were rejected by the learned Judge Small Causes, vide order dated 14.9.2010. The application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the opposite parties no.3 to 5 have denied the petitioner as their land lady and the application moved on behalf of the opposite parties no. 3 to 5 was rejected on the ground that the opposite parties no.3 to 5 have already filed their written statement and the statement of one of the witnesses of the petitioner has already been recorded and as such the defence could not be struck off.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection of both the applications, preferred SCC Revision No. 92 of 2010 in the court of District Judge, Lucknow which was allowed by the Additional District Judge Court No.2, Lucknow vide judgment and order dated 1.3.2011, whereby the order dated 14.9.2010 was set aside and it was directed that both the applications filed under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC be decided fresh. The learned SCC Judge in compliance of the judgment and order passed by the Revisional Court, considered both the applications and by the order dated 27.5.2011, the application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC filed by the opposite parties no.3 to 5, was allowed and the application of the petitioner for striking off the defence was rejected. The petitioner filed a revision against the aforesaid order permitting the opposite parties no.3 to 5 to deposit the rent in the court of District Judge, Lucknow which was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 21.1.2005, passed by the Additional District Judge Court No.2, Lucknow.

4. I have heard Shri R.C. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri