- (1.) Heard Sri Namit Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant-revisionist; Sri Sudhir Kumar Kulshrestha, Advocate, assisted by Sri Ankit Saran, learned counsel for the opposite party.
(2.) Present revision is directed against the order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Bareilly in SCC Suit No. 06 of 2013. By that order, the learned court below has allowed the application filed by the opposite party under Order 15 Rule 5 of C.P.C., paper no. 57-Ga and struck off the defence of the applicant.
(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is two fold. First, it has been submitted that there was no relationship of lessor-lessee between the parties and that the applicant was a licensee of the opposite party - employer viz-a-viz residential quarter allotted to him. In that view of the matter, the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 of C.P.C. are stated to be wholly inapplicable. In support of such submission, reliance has been placed on the documents annexed to the plaint, disclosing that only the licence fee had been charged by the opposite party, which was deducted from the salary paid to him. Further, it has been submitted that the allotment of the residential quarter had not been made to the applicant under the provisions of U.P. Industrial Housing Act, 1955 andtherefore, no reliance could have been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Unichem Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Rani Devi & Anr.; AIR 2017 SC 2050 as in that case, it was undisputed between the parties that the allotment had been made under the aforesaid U.P. Act.;