Hon’ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.—This petition has been filed praying for quashing of the judgment and order dated 1.3.2017 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Aligarh in SCC Suit No. 27 of 2011 (Ashra Rani Gupta v. Vineet Kumar) and the order dated 18.1.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Aligarh in SCC Revision No. 11 of 2017 (Vineet Kumar v. Ashra Ram).

2. The facts as are relevant for decision of the controversy are being given as follows :

3. The respondent No. 3 being plaintiff - Asha Rani Gupta wife of Anil Kumar instituted SCC Suit No. 27 of 2011 alleging therein that she is the owner of shop No. 1/225 as she had purchased the said shop from Rajiv Kant Sharma son of Trilochan Sharma by a registered sale-deed dated 10.5.2010.

4. It was further stated that the petitioner/defendant was the tenant of the vendor on a monthly rent of Rs. 625/- apart from taxes and after she purchased the said shop, Asha Rani Gupta issued a registered notice on 8.1.2011 demanding rent which was refused by him. It was further alleged that the shop being a new construction, the provision of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 did not apply and a prayer was made for a decree for rent and damages and for eviction of the petitioner/defendant from the shop in question.

5. The petitioner/defendant filed his written statement and asserted that he was continuing as a tenant of the shop in question on behalf its landlady - Smt. Sudha Sharma since long and Smt. Sudha Sharma was issuing rent receipts to him. He had paid such rent upto 31.8.2012 to Smt. Sudha Sharma @ 500/- per month. The petitioner/defendant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and also questioned the validity of the sale-deed dated 10.5.2010 allegedly executed by Rajiv Kant Sharma in favour of the plaintiff. It was alleged that Rajiv Kant Sharma was the husband of Smt. Sudha Sharma who was the owner and landlady and Sri Rajiv Kant Sharma could not have sold off the same property twice. It was alleged that on 4.5.2010 Rajiv Kant Sharma had sold the property to Abhishek Gupta and therefore on 10.5.2010, he could not have sold off the same property to Asha Rani Gupta and Abhishek Kumar son of Anil Kumar Gupta. The identity of the property mentioned in the sale-deed as shop No. 1/225 was also disputed.

6. After this written statement was filed on 4.9.2012, an application was moved by the respondent/plaintiff on 3.8.2016 under Order XV, Rule 5 of the CPC on the ground that during the pendency of the Suit, the petitioner/defendant had not deposited the rent and taxes and hence his defence should be struck off. Objections were filed by the petitioner/defendant on 4.10.2016 on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and hence the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5 CPC are not attracted.

7. The Trial Court in its order dated 1.3.2017 allowed the application under Order XV, Rule 5 CPC on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant may have been denied, but the defendant had not denied that he was a tenant of the property in question and observed that since the property in question had been bought through registered sale-deed on 10.5.2010 by the respondent/plaintiff, the relationship of landlord and tenant had come into existence and as per order XV, Rule 5 CPC, the arrears of rent alongwith interest and cost as well as the current rent should have been deposited by the tenant which was not done and no representation made for further time, therefore the defence of the tenant was struck off.

8. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, the tenant preferred a Revision which revision was also rejected by the learned Additional District Judge by order dated 18.1.2018.

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Shri P.K. Jain assisted by Shri Divakar Rai Sharma, has submitted that the petitioner-tenant having disputed the validity of the registered sale-deed as also the relationship of landlord and tenant s