Suresh Chandra Kapoor (Deceased) And Another v. Counsel for

petitioner/ defendant/ tenant from disputed premises on the ground that petitioner has been in arrears of rent since January 1975. In the aforementioned suit, plaintiff/ respondent/ landlord filed an application (63-C) under Order 15 Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code hereinafter referred to as C.P.C. for striking off the defence of the petitioner/ defendant/ tenant. Petitioner/ defendant/ tenant filed his objection to the application (63-C) filed by landlord. Judge Small Cause vide order dated 26.5.2023 struck off the defence of the petitioner/ defendant/ tenant. Against the order dated 26.5.2023, petitioner/ defendant/ tenant filed revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small 2 A227 No. 11017 of 2025 Cause Court Act which remained pending before the revisional Court. Judge Small Cause vide final judgement and decree dated 11.9.2024 decreed the SCC suit No. 59 of 2012 and directed for eviction of the petitioner/ tenant/ defendant from the disputed premised within 30 days. Petitioner/ defendant/ tenant challenged the judgement and decree dated 11.9.2024 by way of revision before the revisional Court which was registered as revision No. 164 of 2024. The revisional Court vide judgement and order dated 21.8.2025 and 25.8.2025 dismissed both the revision filed by petitioner/ defendant/ tenant hence this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the petitioner/ defendant/ tenant before this Court for the following relief:- "a) Issue an order or direction, calling for the records and set aside the Impugned orders dated 26.05.2023 (passed by JSCC, Allahabad striking off the defense of the petitioner tenant under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC); impugned order of eviction dated 11.09.2024 (passed in SCC Suit No.59 of 2012); impugned order dated

21.08.2025 (passed in SCC Revision No.163 of 2023) which now stand merged in impugned order dated

25.08.2025 (passed by JSCC / ADJ, Court No.9, Prayagraj passed in SCC Revision No. 164 of 2024). b) Issue any suitable order or direction, restraining the plaintiff respondent / landlord from evicting petitioner tenant from the part of disputed premises, 3 A227 No. 11017 of 2025 pursuant to the impugned order dated 11.09.2024 & dated 25.08 2025."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that procedure prescribed for deciding the SCC suit has not been followed by Judge Small Cause, as such, the judgement and decree passed by Judge Small Cause cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that order passed by the Judge Small Cause for striking off the defence of the petitioner/ defendant/ tenant under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. was also illegal, as such, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He submitted that plaintiff has failed to prove his case by oral and documentary evidence, as such, the SCC suit cannot be decreed by Judge Small Cause. He submitted that Judge Small Cause has not framed any issue relating to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, as such, the judgement and decree passed by Judge Small Cause is erroneous. He submitted that Judge Small Cause has shifted the burden of proof upon the petitioner/ defendant/ tenant to the effect that defendant/ tenant did not make any effort to obtain the rent receipts from the landlord. He further submitted that revisions filed by petitioner have also been dismissed in arbitrary manner without considering the case of the petitioner. He submitted that all the impugned judgements/ orders should be set aside and the SCC suit filed by plaintiff/ respondent should be decided afresh. He placed reliance upon the following judgement of Apex Court as well as 4 A227 No. 11017 of 2025 of this Court in support of his argument:- "(i) 2019 (5) AWC 4897 State of U.P. and another Vs. Chunna Lal and another. (ii) (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 512 Man Kaur (dead) by Lrs. Vs. Hartar Singh Sangha"

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1/1/ landlord/ plaintiff submitted that SCC suit was filed by the landlord in the year 2012. She further submitted that petitioner/ defendant/ tenant has avoided the proceeding of SCC suit. She submitted that defence of the defendant/ tenant has rightly struck off by the Judge Small Cause vide order dated 26.5.2023. She submitted that Judge Small Cause has properly decided the SCC suit after framing point of determination/ issues regarding relationship of landlord and tenant, default in payment of rent, service of notice upon the tenant as well as any other relief in the matter. She submitted that revisional jurisdiction has also been exercised in proper manner while dismissing the revision filed by petitioner/ defendant/ tenant. She submitted that petitioner/ defendant/ tenant has made default in payment of rent to the landlord, as such, no interference is required against the order impugned passed by Judge Small Cause as well as revisional Court.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5 A227 No. 11017 of 2025

6. There is no dispute about the fact that SCC suit filed by plaintiff/ respondent was decreed by the Judge Small Cause vide judgement and decree dated 11.9.2024 and the revision filed by petitioner has also been dismissed under impugned judgement/ order dated 21.8.2025/

25.8.2025.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of the order passed by Judge Small Cause on 26.5.2023 under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. striking off the defence of defendant/ tenant will be relevant which is as under:- "26.05.23 Called out present counsel for plaintiff. Defendant counsel made adjournment same in strongly opposed by plaintiff. I presented the record defendant is making adjournment application on one and other grounds to delay the proceedings, Defendant has not paid his cost which is imposed on him. Defendant intentionally causing delay. Therefore, adjournment is filed today is rejected. Application 63 has been filed by plaintiff u/o 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. to struck the defense of defendant because he failed to pay the rent, compensation etc. and per mandate of O 15 R. 5 C.P.C. I also presented the objection 66C where in para 11 defendant admitted that he deposit the rent upto March 2017. Thereafter he deposit the rent in year Nov 22. I on perusal of the record it is clear that defendant failed to deposit rent month to month as per Or. 15 R 5 CPC. Keeping in of the facts and circumstances of the case, defendant failed to complied with mandate of 6 A227 No. 11017 of 2025 Or. 15 R. 5. Application 63 is liable to be allow. Order Application 63C allowed defense of defendant struck off u/s 015. Put upon 11/7/23 for argument. Sd/- Illegible"

8. The perusal of the order passed during pendency of SCC suit striking off the defence of the petitioner/ defendant/ tenant demonstrate that defendant/ tenant is avoiding the proceeding of SCC suit by one way or other.

9. The perusal of the point of determination/ issues framed by the Judge Small Cause in the aforementioned SCC suit will be relevant which are as under:- "प्ऴावली पर उपलब्ध उभयप्ष के परस्पर िवरोधी अिभवचनों के आधार पर िनम्निलिखत िनधार्रण िबन्दु िवरिचत िकये जाते हैं-

1. क्या वादी तथा ्ऺितवादी के मध्य िकरायेदार तथा स्वामी का संबंध है?

2. क्या ्ऺितवादी िकराया अदा करने में असफल रहा है?

3. क्या नोिटस ्ऺितवादी को तामील है?

4. क्या वादी ्ऺश्नगत मकान को खाली कराये जाने का हकदार है?

5. क्या वादी अन्य अनुतोष ्ऺाप्त करने का हकदार है?"

10. The Judge Small Cause has considered all the five points of determination/ issues framed in the SCC suit in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties and has recorded the finding of fact that there was proper service of notice by the landlord to the tenant and tenant has 7 A227 No. 11017 of 2025 made default in payment of rent, as such, decree has been passed by the Judge Small Cause.

11. The revisional Court has also maintained the judgement and decree of the Judge Small Cause considering the case in purview of Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act which is correct exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the revisional Court.

12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, there is no scope for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned judgement/ order passed by Small Cause Court.

13. The instant petition is dismissed accordingly.

14. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner/ tenant is granted four months time to vacate the shop/ premises in question subject to the following conditions: (a). Petitioner/ tenant shall file an undertaking before the Judge Small Cause within period of four weeks from today to the effect that he will handover peaceful possession of the shop in question to the respondent / landlord within period of four months from the date of judgement of this Court. (b). In the undertaking, petitioner / tenant shall also 8 A227 No. 11017 of 2025 state that he will not create any third party interest in the shop in question. (c). In case of default of any of the condition mentioned above, protection granted by this Court shall automatically vacated. (d). In case shop in question is not vacated as per the undertaking given by the petitioner/ tenant, he shall be liable for contempt. September 16, 2025 Vandana Y. (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

petitioner/ defendant/ tenant from disputed premises on the ground that petitioner has been in arrears of rent since January 1975. In the aforementioned suit, plaintiff/ respondent/ landlord filed an application (63-C) under Order 15 Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code hereinafter referred to as C.P.C. for striking off the defence of the petitioner/ defendant/ tenant. Petitioner/ defendant/ tenant filed his objection to the application (63-C) filed by landlord. Judge Small Cause vide order dated 26.5.2023 struck off the defence of the petitioner/ defendant/ tenant. Against the order dated 26.5.2023, petitioner/ defendant/ tenant filed revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small 2 A227 No. 11017 of 2025 Cause Court Act which remained pending before the revisional Court. Judge Small Cause vide final judgement and decree dated 11.9.2024 decreed the SCC suit No. 59 of 2012 and directed for eviction of the petitioner/ tenant/ defendant from the disputed premised within 30 days. Petitioner/ defendant/ tenant challenged the judgement and decree dated 11.9.2024 by way of revision before the revisional Court which was registered as revision No. 164 of 2024. The revisional Court vide judgement and order dated 21.8.2025 and 25.8.2025 dismissed both the revision filed by petitioner/ defendant/ tenant hence this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the petitioner/ defendant/ tenant before this Court for the following relief:- "a) Issue an order or direction, calling for the records and set aside the Impugned orders dated 26.05.2023 (passed by JSCC, Allahabad striking off the defense of the petitioner tenant under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC); impugned order of eviction dated 11.09.2024 (passed in SCC Suit No.59 of 2012); impugned order dated

21.08.2025 (passed in SCC Revision No.163 of 2023) which now stand merged in impugned order dated

25.08.2025 (passed by JSCC / ADJ, Court No.9, Prayagraj passed in SCC Revision No. 164 of 2024). b) Issue any suitable order or direction, restraining the plaintiff respondent / landlord from evicting petitioner tenant from the part of disputed premises, 3 A227 No. 11017 of 2025 pursuant to the impugned order dated 11.09.2024 & dated 25.08 2025."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that procedure prescribed for deciding the SCC suit has not been followed by Judge Small Cause, as such, the judgement and decree passed by Judge Small Cause cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that order passed by the Judge Small Cause for striking off the defence of the petitioner/ defendant/ tenant under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. was also illegal, as such, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He submitted that plaintiff has failed to prove his case by oral and documentary evidence, as such, the SCC suit cannot be decreed by Judge Small Cause. He submitted that Judge Small Cause has not framed any issue relating to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, as such, the judgement and decree passed by Judge Small Cause is erroneous. He submitted that Judge Small Cause has shifted the burden of proof upon the petitioner/ defendant/ tenant to the effect that defendant/ tenant did not make any effort to obtain the rent receipts from the landlord. He further submitted that revisions filed by petitioner have also been dismissed in arbitrary manner without considering the case of the petitioner. He submitted that all the impugned judgements/ orders should be set aside and the SCC suit filed by plaintiff/ respondent should be decided afresh. He placed reliance upon the following judgement of Apex Court as well as 4 A227 No. 11017 of 2025 of this Court in support of his argument:- "(i) 2019 (5) AWC 4897 State of U.P. and another Vs. Chunna Lal and another. (ii) (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 512 Man Kaur (dead) by Lrs. Vs. Hartar Singh Sangha"

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1/1/ landlord/ plaintiff submitted that SCC suit was filed by the landlord in the year 2012. She further submitted that petitioner/ defendant/ tenant has avoided the proceeding of SCC suit. She submitted that defence of the defendant/ tenant has rightly struck off by the Judge Small Cause vide order dated 26.5.2023. She submitted that Judge Small Cause has properly decided the SCC suit after framing point of determination/ issues regarding relationship of landlord and tenant, default in payment of rent, service of notice upon the tenant as well as any other relief in the matter. She submitted that revisional jurisdiction has also been exercised in proper manner while dismissing the revision filed by petitioner/ defendant/ tenant. She submitted that petitioner/ defendant/ tenant has made default in payment of rent to the landlord, as such, no interference is required against the order impugned passed by Judge Small Cause as well as revisional Court.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5 A227 No. 11017 of 2025

6. There is no dispute about the fact that SCC suit filed by plaintiff/ respondent was decreed by the Judge Small Cause vide judgement and decree dated 11.9.2024 and the revision filed by petitioner has also been dismissed under impugned judgement/ order dated 21.8.2025/

25.8.2025.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of the order passed by Judge Small Cause on 26.5.2023 under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. striking off the defence of defendant/ tenant will be relevant which is as under:- "26.05.23 Called out present counsel for plaintiff. Defendant counsel made adjournment same in strongly opposed by plaintiff. I presented the record defendant is making adjournment application on one and other grounds to delay the proceedings, Defendant has not paid his cost which is imposed on him. Defendant intentionally causing delay. Therefore, adjournment is filed today is rejected. Application 63 has been filed by plaintiff u/o 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. to struck the defense of defendant because he failed to pay the rent, compensation etc. and per mandate of O 15 R. 5 C.P.C. I also presented the objection 66C where in para 11 defendant admitted that he deposit the rent upto March 2017. Thereafter he deposit the rent in year Nov 22. I on perusal of the record it is clear that defendant failed to deposit rent month to month as per Or. 15 R 5 CPC. Keeping in of the facts and circumstances of the case, defendant failed to complied with mandate of 6 A227 No. 11017 of 2025 Or. 15 R. 5. Application 63 is liable to be allow. Order Application 63C allowed defense of defendant struck off u/s 015. Put upon 11/7/23 for argument. Sd/- Illegible"

8. The perusal of the order passed during pendency of SCC suit striking off the defence of the petitioner/ defendant/ tenant demonstrate that defendant/ tenant is avoiding the proceeding of SCC suit by one way or other.

9. The perusal of the point of determination/ issues framed by the Judge Small Cause in the aforementioned SCC suit will be relevant which are as under:- "प्ऴावली पर उपलब्ध उभयप्ष के परस्पर िवरोधी अिभवचनों के आधार पर िनम्निलिखत िनधार्रण िबन्दु िवरिचत िकये जाते हैं-

1. क्या वादी तथा ्ऺितवादी के मध्य िकरायेदार तथा स्वामी का संबंध है?

2. क्या ्ऺितवादी िकराया अदा करने में असफल रहा है?

3. क्या नोिटस ्ऺितवादी को तामील है?

4. क्या वादी ्ऺश्नगत मकान को खाली कराये जाने का हकदार है?

5. क्या वादी अन्य अनुतोष ्ऺाप्त करने का हकदार है?"

10. The Judge Small Cause has considered all the five points of determination/ issues framed in the SCC suit in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties and has recorded the finding of fact that there was proper service of notice by the landlord to the tenant and tenant has 7 A227 No. 11017 of 2025 made default in payment of rent, as such, decree has been passed by the Judge Small Cause.

11. The revisional Court has also maintained the judgement and decree of the Judge Small Cause considering the case in purview of Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act which is correct exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the revisional Court.

12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, there is no scope for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned judgement/ order passed by Small Cause Court.

13. The instant petition is dismissed accordingly.

14. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner/ tenant is granted four months time to vacate the shop/ premises in question subject to the following conditions: (a). Petitioner/ tenant shall file an undertaking before the Judge Small Cause within period of four weeks from today to the effect that he will handover peaceful possession of the shop in question to the respondent / landlord within period of four months from the date of judgement of this Court. (b). In the undertaking, petitioner / tenant shall also 8 A227 No. 11017 of 2025 state that he will not create any third party interest in the shop in question. (c). In case of default of any of the condition mentioned above, protection granted by this Court shall automatically vacated. (d). In case shop in question is not vacated as per the undertaking given by the petitioner/ tenant, he shall be liable for contempt. September 16, 2025 Vandana Y. (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad