The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of property rights and the rights and liabilities of the lessor and transferee, as governed by the Transfer of Property Act, influenced the court's decision in upholding the striking off of the defendants' defence.

Mahendra Dayal,J.

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.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of their application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the defendants-revisionists preferred a revision before this Court, which was also dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 04.09.2015. This Court while dismissing the revision held that the plaintiff-opposite party became entitled to receive the rent from the date of transfer. In view of Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, the transfer of property passes forthwith to the transferee with all the interest which the transferor is capable of passing in the property and in the legal incidents thereof. The right of a lessee would be include to have been transferred in the terms of the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act.

5. So far as the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is concerned, this Court in the aforesaid order observed that it will be open for the Court of Judge Small Causes to consider the same at the time of hearing of the case. With this observations, the revision was dismissed and the trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings of the suit considering all the pleadings which may be available to the parties. After the dismissal of their revision, the defendants-revisionists moved another application before the court below with the prayer that the Court may consider the question of maintainability of the suit as the suit was not maintainable without notice for termination of tenenacy. This application is still pending. Meanwhile the plaintiff-opposite party moved an application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC stating therein that the defendants-revisionists have failed to file any written statement and deposit any rent on the first date of hearing as required under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC. They have also failed to deposit monthly rent in the Court as required by the aforesaid provision. This application was decided by the order impugned in this revision and the learned court below found that since the defendants-revisionists have failed to comply with the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC, therefore, their defence was liable to be struck off.

6. Learned counsel for the defendants-revisionists, Shri M.A. Siddiqui has argued that a