Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. - (1.) Heard Sri S.K. Kakkar, learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners/tenants and Sri Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 to 4.
(2.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for the following relief: "i) To call for the record of the court below of JSC case No.5 of 2016 and to set aside the impugned order dated 13.9.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Gorakhpur rejecting Application No.37 Ga and 50 Ga respectively of the defendant filed in S.C. Case No.5 of 2016 (Ram Niwas Verma and others Vs. State Bank of India and another) ii) To issue an order/direction thereby directing the court below to allow the Application No. 50 Ga dated 22.05.2017 of the defendant-petitioner for handing over the possession and keys of the premises in question to the plaintiffs-respondents in order to avoid futile increase of rent/damages of the premises in question after 22.5.2017. "
(3.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that undisputedly the plaintiffs-respondents are the owner and landlord of the disputed building "Kedar Khand", C/161/123, Mohalla - Shekhpur, City - Gorakhpur. They have let out certain portion of the building to the defendants-petitioners/tenants measuring 1971.65 sq feet. According to the plaintiffs-respondents the tenancy started from 2.8.2013. The plaintiffs-respondents issued a notice dated 15.9.2015 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act whereby they terminated the tenancy on account of default in payment of rent by the defendants-petitioners. They also demanded arrears of rent. According to the plaintiffs-respondents neither the disputed accommodation was vacated by the defendants-petitioners/tenants nor the arrears of rent was paid and as such they filed SCC Suit No. 5 of 2016 (Ram Niwas Verma and others Vs. State Bank of India and another). The defendants-petitioners filed a written statement in that suit on 14.9.2016. However, neither the arrears of rent demanded was paid nor month to month rent was paid and as such the plaintiffs-respondents filed an application 37Ga on 4.11.2016 praying to strike off the defence under Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C. A reply to the said application was filed by the defendants-petitioners/tenants on 21.12.2016. By the impugned order dated 13.9.2017 the application 37Ga was allowed on the admitted fact that the defendants-petitioners/tenants have not complied with the provision of order XV Rule 5 C.P.C. Thus, the defence of the defendants-petitioners was striked off.;