The court emphasized that timely payment of rent is essential in eviction suits, and striking out a defense should be exercised with discretion, especially when landlord-tenant relationships are disputed.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Mr. Shreyas Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant and Mrs. Rama Goel Bansal along with Ms. Shailini Goel, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents-plaintiffs have instituted a Small Cause Suit No.3 of 2016 before the Judge, Small Cause Court, claiming themselves to be the landlord of the property in question. The respondents-plaintiffs are claiming their title through Mr. Harish Chandra Kapoor, the late husband of respondent no.1 and late father of respondent no.2. The property in question is part and parcel of a huge portion of land situated at 189, Civil Lines, District Bareilly. One S.C.C. Suit No. 4 of 2020 was instituted by one Mr. Darab Shah in the court of Judge, Small Cause Court, District Bareilly, impleading Sri Anoop Chaddha as the opposite party which was decided on the basis of compromise. In S.C.C. Suit No.3 of 2016, original petitioner-defendant (J.B. Motors) put in appearance and filed application under Order 11 Rule 16 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (for short “C.P.C.”), seeking production of document / title by original plaintiffs-respondents before the Judge, Small Cause Court. The petitioner/defendant filed his written statement, denying the ownership of the plaintiffs-respondents in respect to the property in question. Replication was filed on 8.3.2022 by the plaintiffs-respondents. Plaintiffs-respondents filed an application dated 20.2.2023 (paper no.67C) under Order 15 Rule 5 of the C.P.C., praying for striking off the defendant’s- petitioner’s defence. The petitioner-defendant filed his objection dated 17.3.2023 to the application under Order 15 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. The petitioner-defendant also filed an application under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887 (for short the “Act”). The plaintiffs-respondents filed their objection to the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Section 23 of the Act and the Judge, Small Cause Court Act vide order dated 19.4.2023 dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs-respondents, recording finding of fact that defendants are the owner of the property in question, as such, they cannot be accepted to pay the rent of the accommodation/ property in question. The plaintiffs-respondents challenged the order of the Judge, Small Cause Court dated 19.4.2023 by way of revision under Section 25 of the Act. The aforementioned revision was numbered as S.C.C. Revision No.28 of 2023. The revisional court vide impugned order dated 1.5.2025, set aside the order of the Judge, Small Cause Court dated 19.4.2023 and remanded the matter back before the Judge, Small Cause Court for fresh consideration of the application under Order 15 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. Hence, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:-

“1. Issue appropriate orders, setting aside the order dated 1.5.2025 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Court No.8, District Bareilly in S.C.C. Revision No.28/2023 ( Hemlata Kapoor and Others vs. J.B. Motors )

2. Issue appropriate orders, directing the Judge, Small Cause Court, District Bareilly, seized with S.C.C. Suit No.3/2016 ( Hemlata Kapoor and Others vs. J.B. Motors ) to decide the application (paper no.83 ga) under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887 (Annexure No.13 to the petition), before procee