In a suit for eviction, if the defendant denies the relationship of landlord and tenant and challenges the plaintiff's title, the court cannot summarily strike off the defence for failure to deposit rent without first adjudicating the jurisdictional validity of the suit.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Himanshu Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-opposite party filed a S.C.C. Suit No.21 of 2024 against the defendant-revisionists for arrears of rent and ejectment. In the plaint, it has been pleaded that defendants are tenants of the property in dispute on the monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- per month and the tenancy has been terminated hence suit was filed for arrears of rent and ejectment. Defendants filed their written statement denying the plaint allegation. In the written statement it has been mentioned that defendants are the owner of three shops in front of the shop for which suit has been filed. In the aforementioned suit, an application 30-Ga-2 under Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the C.P.C.) has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Defendants filed their objection to the application filed by plaintiff under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. stating that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Judge Small cause court vide order dated 13.02.2025 allowed the application 30-Ga-2 filed by plaintiff and struck off the defence of the defendants. Hence this S.C.C. Revision on behalf of the defendants for following relief:

"order and decree dated 13.02.2025 passed by the District Judge, Banda, be set aside and quashed and application 30Ga2 be dismissed and objection 33-C2 be allowed, and/or pass such further relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3. This Court on 16.09.2025 passed the following order:

"1. Heard Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Himanshu Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Judgment reserved.

3. Put up this matter for delivery of judgment on 09.10.2025

4. Till the date of delivery of judgment the proceeding of SCC Suit No. 21 of 2024 pending before the Judge Small Cause, Banda shall remain stayed."

4. On 09.10.2025 following order was passed by this Court:-

"1. Put up this matter for delivery of judgment on 16.10.2025.

2. Till the date of delivery of judgment, the proceeding of S.C.C. Suit No.21 of 2024, pending before the Judge, Small Causes, Banda shall remain stayed."

5. Learned Senior counsel for the revisionist submitted that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as such application under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. cannot be allowed by Judge Small Cause Court. He further submitted that defendants are not liable to pay rent in respect to the shop in question, as they are owner of the property in dispute. He further submitted that in the written statement, it is categorically mentioned that plaintiff is not owner of the property in dispute. He further submitted that ancestor of the defendants namely Gyan Chandra had taken three shops from the family of the ancestor of the plaintiff, which was later on sold by plaintiff to 3rd party. He submitted that finding recorded by Judge Small cause regarding relationship of landlord and tenant is perverse. He further submitted that finding recorded that defendants have not deposited the rent is perverse. He further submitted that paper No.39-C, 40-C, 41-C, 42-C and 42-C-2 have not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order. He s