The main legal point established is that the defendant must comply with the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 of the C.P.C. and pay the admitted rent at the first hearing and the monthly amount due throughout the suit, irrespective of the denial of the landlord-tenant relationship.

JUDGMENT :

1. When the learned Single Judge had referred the matter for being placed before a Larger Bench on 18.5.2023, Hon’ble the Chief Justice placed the case before this Court. Following is the question which the learned Single Judge had referred :-

“1) In case of disputing the landlord-tenant relationship by the revisionist-defendant upon the application under Order XV Rule 5 CPC (U.P. Amendment), as to whether it is required on the part of the SCC Court to decide the landlord-tenant relationship first or not, before proceeding to pass final order on the application.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant in the Revision Sri Iqbal Ahmad and the counsel for the respondent-opposite party Sri Ashish Agrawal.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that a Suit being S.C.C. Suit No. 10 of 2017 was filed by the plaintiff-respondent on the ground that there were arrears of rent which had not been paid by the defendant and, therefore, a prayer was made that the defendant be evicted from the premises, the boundaries of which were given at the bottom of the plaint. Further prayer was that the tenant be directed by a mandatory decree to deposit Rs. 1,51,333/-with the plaintiff-respondent as arrears of rent. There were other reliefs also prayed for in the plaint. The defendant-applicant in the Revision filed a written statement and denied the fact that the defendant-revisionist was ever a tenant of the plaintiff. He had further stated that there was no agreement between the plaintiff and defendant with regard to tenancy of the property in question and had stated that the burden of proving that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties was on the plaintiff. He had also denied the fact that any rent was ever paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. He had further stated that the property numbered as M.M.I.G. No. A-222 situate at Ekta Vihar North Moradabad was constructed by the defendant from his own income. Still further, it was stated that the property in question was purchased by the plaintiff on 7.10.2009 from the actual owner Sri Faizan Khan son of Babban Khan and the plaintiff, thereafter with an intention to sell the property to the defendant had entered into an agreement with him that the property would be sold to the defendant for Rs. 8,94,927/-and that at the time of the execution of the agreement for sale Rs. 2,10,000/-were paid to the plaintiff and, thereafter, the plaintiff had put the defendant into actual and physical possession where he was staying ever since the year 2011 peacefully. The defendant had further stated in the written statement that the payment which the defendant had made at the time when the agreement to sell was entered into was of Rs. 2,10,000/-and that was only a part payment. This meant that Rs. 6,84,927/-were still payable. The defendant has further stated that the remaining amount was also in fact paid off subsequently. In the written statement, it had been stated that malafidely despite the fact that the complete payment was made and despite the fact that the defendant had asked for the execution of the sale deed on various occasions the plaintiff had dishonestly filed the Suit in question treating the defendant a tenant. During the pendency of the suit, when almost 5 years had passed, an application under Order XV Rule 5 of the C.P.C. was filed by the plaintiff/opposite party on 24.1.2023 (paper no. 51ga), to which the applicant-defendant had objected on 13.2.2023. To prove the fact that the defendant had paid to the plaintiff various amounts as sale consideration, the applicant-defendant had also filed a statement of account of the Account No. 16257300000104 as an evidence in the case.

4. The Trial Court / Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Moradabad, when had allowed the application under Order XV Rule 5 of the C.P.C. and had struck off the defence of the defendant/applicant in the Revision by his order dated 29.3.2023, the instant S.C.C. Revision No. 55 of 2