- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated i2-2-1997 passed by the Judge Small Cause Court Jhansi, respondent No. 2, striking off the defence of the petitioner, and the order dated 9-4-1997 passed by the respondent No. 3 dismissing the revision of the petitioner against the aforesaid order.
(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent No. 1 is owner of premises No. 103 inside Sainyar Gate Jhansi. Shri B. N. Purwar, husband of the petitioner, was tenant of the disputed premises. Respon dent No. 1 filed Suit No. 22 of 1989 in the Court Judge Small Causes, Jhansi against B. N. Purwar, husband of the petitioner, for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages on the allegations that he was tenant of the disputed premises on monthly rent of Rs. 420/ -. He failed to pay rent since 1- 10-1987. A notice dated 21-4-1989 was sent to him demanding arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy. THE notice was received by him on 25-4-1989 but inspite of its service, he did not comply with it. During the pendency of the suit, B. N. Purwar died. After his death, the landlord filed substitu tion application impleading his widow Smt. Raj Purwar-petitioner and his two sons namely Pranay Purwar and Ritesh Purwar. The petitioner filed written state ment on 25th March, 1995 stating that B. N. Purwar had vacated the accommodation in January, 1986 i. e. long before the filing of the suit. As the accommodation had been vacated, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. The landlord after get ting possession of the premises, let out to Purshottam Purwar Advocate. B. N. Purwar having vacated the accommodation, was not liable to pay any rent. Respondent No. 1 filed application to strike off defence of the petitioner as the petitioner failed to deposit the rent in ac cordance with the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner filed objection stating that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant and after delivering the possession to the landlord, he was not liable to pay any rent.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2 recorded finding that version of the petitioner that Shri B. N. Purwar, her husband had vacated the ac commodation in January, 1986, was totally false, and the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties continued to exist. The defence of the petitioner was struck off by order dated 12-2-1997. Ag grieved thereby, the petitioner filed revision and respondent No. 3 has dismissed the revision by order dated 9- 4-1997. Shri B. N. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the tenant is liable to deposit the rent only when the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties concerned and second ly, when the liability to pay the rent is ad mitted.;