MAHENDRA DAYAL,J. - (1.) The petitioners have filed this writ petition for setting aside the order dated 10.02.2017 passed by the Judge Small Cause Court, Lucknow in S.C.C Suit No. 121 of 2006 and the judgment and order dated 20.07.2017 passed by the Special Judge C.B.I./Additional District Judge, Lucknow in SCC Revision No. 9 of 2017.
(2.) I have heard Sri Nirmit Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and perused the record.
(3.) The respondent No. 3 filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the petitioners. During pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order 15, Rule 5 read with section 151 CPC for permission to deposit the rent. It was stated by them that when the respondent No. 3 filed the written statement, it was known to them that the respondent No. 3 had become the landlady because prior to filing of the written statement, they attorned the husband of the opposite party No. 3, namely Surya Prakash Agarwal as their landlord and had also been paying rent to him. He had also been accepting the rent as landlady. When he refused to accept the rent, the same was deposited under Section 30 (1) of the Rent Control Act in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division). When Suit No. 267 of 2003 was decided and the petitioners came to know that she had become the landlady, they moved the application for permission to deposit the rent.;