Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Chandra And 2 Others vs Rajeev Krishna on 16 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:185331
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
S.C.C. REVISION No. - 42 of 2025
Reserved on 16.09.2025
Delivered on 16.10.2025
Ramesh Chandra And 2 Others
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
Rajeev Krishna
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Himanshu Singh, Nitin Jain, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Rakesh Kumar
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE 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 submitted that S.C.C. Suit filed by plaintiff-respondent is barred by Section 23 of provincial Small Causes Court Act and the same is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. He placed the reliance upon the following judgment of Apex Court as well as of this Court in support of his arguments. "1. (1985) 2 Supreme Court Cases 550, Civil Apepal No.360 of 1985, Mohd. Azeem Vs. District Judge Aligarh and others. 2. 1981(3) SCC 486, Civil Appeal No. 1759 of 1981, Bimal Chand Jain Versus Gopal Agarwal. 3. 1979 AIR (Allahabad) 182 Civil Revn. No. 1363 of 1975.Maqsood Ali Versus Shamsher Khan 4. 2024 (1) ADJ 440 S.C.C. Revision No.55 of 2023 Bhure Khan Warsi vs. Mohd Israr 5. (159) RD 738 Civil Appeal No. 4682 of 2022 (Arising Out of SIp(Civil) No. 1319 Of 2019). Asha Rani Gupta Versus Sri Vineet Kumar 6. . 2025:AHC: 156575 Matters Under Article 227 No.7409 of 2025, J.B. Motors versus Smt. Hemlata Kapoor and 2 Others"
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party submitted that there is no illegality in the order impugned passed by Judge Small Cause allowing the application No.30-Ga-2 filed by plaintiff-opposite party under Order 15 Rule 5 of C.P.C. He further submitted that defendants/revisionists have not deposited the rent on the first date of hearing, as such the defence of the defendants has been rightly struck off under the impugned order. He further submitted that plaintiff is owner of the disputed premises and there is no dispute of any title. He submitted that no interference is required and instant revison filed by defendants/ revisionists should be dismissed.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned cousnel for the parties and perused the record.
8. There is no dispute about the fact that S.C.C. Suit No.21 of 2024 filed by plaintiff-opposite party is pending before District Judge Banda. There is also no dispute about the fact that application 30-Ga-2 filed by plaintiff-opposite party under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. has been allowed under the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 and defence of the defendants/ revisionist has been struck off.
8. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter perusal of the objection filed on behalf of defendants/revisionist dated 22.01.2025 will be relevant. ???????? :- ???? ?????????, ????? ????? ??? ???: 21 ??? 2024 ??? ????? ??????? ?????????? ???
?????? ??????? ????????? ???? ???? ???????? ???? 15 ???? 5 ????? ????????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ??????????? ?? ?? ?? ?????????? ?? :- 1. ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??????????? ?? ??????? ???????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? 15 ???? 5 ????? ????????? ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ??? 2 ?? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ????????? ????????? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??. ?? ?????? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ??????????? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??. ?? ??????? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????????? ???
3. ?? ?? ???? ?? ??????????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ???? 2303 ? 2304 ?? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ??????? 2 ??? ???????? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? 4. ?? ?? ?? ??????? ????? ??????????? ?? ?????? ? ????????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ??????????? ?? ???? ???????? ? ????? ????? ?? ??????? ??????? ??? ??, ??? ??? ??? ???? 15 ???? 5 ????? ????????? ?????? ?? ????????? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ??? 5. ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? 23 ???????????? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ????? 6. ?? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ? ???? ??????????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????????????? / ???????????
1.?????????? ????? ???? ???????
2. ???????? 3.???????? ??????? ????-??????????? ????????
???? ??? ???????? ????? /
????? ? ??????? ?? ???
??????? ????, ????-?????
9. In the written-statement filed on behalf defendants in the SCC suit no.-21 of 2024 specific averment has been made that plaintiff is not owner of the disputed premises and suit is barred by provision contained under section-23 of the provisional small cause Courts Act,1887.
10. The Division Bench of of this Court, in the case of Bhurey Khan Warsi (supra) answered the reference made by Single Judge in respect application filed under Order 15 Rule 5 of C.P.C.in SCC suit in following manner: "31. Ultimately, this Court answers the reference in the following manner: (1) In a suit for eviction, on the determination of lease if the lessee admits that there was rent due then at or before the first hearing of the suit he shall pay the entire admitted amount along with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum. ii) If he does not admit any amount to be due then he would throughout the continuation of the suit regularly deposit the monthly amount due within a week from the date of its accrual.
iii) Default of the above two would give the Court a right to strike off the defence, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Order XV Rule 5 of the C.P.C. which gives the defendant an opportunity to represent within ten days from the first hearing.
(iv) As per the explanation-ll of Order XV Rule 2
C.P.C., the entire amount admitted by the defendant-lessee has to be construed as the entire gross amount whether as rent or compensation for use and occupation, calculated at the "admitted rate of rent" for the admitted period.
(v) The monthly amount due which had to be paid within one week after the monthly amount payable became due was also to be paid at the "admitted rate of rent".
(vi) The law, as had been laid down in paragraph no.11 of Pradyuman Jee vs. Special/Additional District Judge, Ballia reported in 2008 (71) ALR 892 which had stated that if the defendant denies the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship then he may not be required to deposit the amount admitted to be due at or before the first hearing of the suit but he would still be required to deposit the monthly amount due, is not a correct law. Order XV Rule 5 of C.P.C. does not talk about the denial of the landlord-tenant relationship. It only talks about "admitted rent".
(vii) As per the judgment of Kunwar Baldevji and etc. vs. The XI Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr & Ors. reported in (2003) 51 ALR 758 if the amount of rent is not admitted then it is required to be adjudicated by the Court. In case, the tenant/defendant denies any rent to be due, the Court would be required to decide the same. Obviously then the Court will have to adjudicate and arrive at a finding at the first date of hearing contemplated under Order XV Rule 5 CPC as to what is the rent and what is payable. This issue has to be framed and thereafter adjudicated upon on the leading of evidence of the parties.
(viii) If the tenant-defendant denies the relationship of landlord-tenant then as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Asha Rani Gupta vs. Vineet Kumar reported in (2022) 8 ADJ 572 (SC) and as per the provisions of section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, the Court will have to determine whether the question raised by the defendant with regard to title of the plaintiff was a serious one or whether the denial of the title was a question which was to be determined with the help of evidence which would be led by the parties. If the denial was a definite ? denial with substantial evidence then the Court of Small Causes, which did not have the jurisdiction/authority to determine the title of the plaintiff, would have the discretion to return the plaint at any stage of the proceedings to be presented before the Court having jurisdiction to determine the title."
11. Inview of the averment made in the written statement and objection filed to the application filed under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. disputing the title of the plaintiff, the defence of the defendants can not be struck of.
12. Considering the Division Bench of this Court in Bhurey Khan Warsi (supra) the impugned judgment/ order passed by Judge Small Cause, striking off of the defence of the defendants/ revisionist cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The impugned judgment/ order dated 13.02.2025 passed by District Judge Banda on Application 30 -Ga -2 is hereby set aside.
13. The revision is allowed.
14. The Judge Small cause/ District Judge Banda is directed to decide the S.C.C.Suit No.21 of 2024 considering the plea of the defendants/ revisionists regarding bar of Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act in the light of the ratio of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Bhurey Khan Warsi (Supra) expeditiously within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order in accordance with law.
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
October 16, 2025
PS*
