# Harmeet Singh v. Desh Deepak Gupta

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 396
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-13
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 5133 of 2023
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/harmeet-singh-v-desh-deepak-gupta-52350
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Civil Law- The Constitution of India, 1950Article 227 - The Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - The Uttar Pradesh Regulation of
Urban
Premises
Tenancy
Act,
2021-
Section-38(1)-Act of 2021 confers jurisdiction
on rent authority/rent tribunal to entertain
petitions filed by landlord or eviction/ejectment
of tenant for recovery of arrears of rent and
damages etc. but there is no provision in the
aforesaid act which confers jurisdiction on the
rent authority/rent tribunal to entertain a suit
for perpetual injunction filed by a tenant against
his dispossession otherwise then in accordance
with the law. Therefore, the jurisdiction of Civil
Courts to entertain suits for injunction filed by
tenants against their landlords, is not barred by
the provisions of the Act of 2021 and the Civil
Court continues to have jurisdiction to entertain
the suits for injunction even after enactment of
the Act of 2021.Impugned order set aside.
(Para 10)

Petition allowed. (E-15)

## Text

396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
nothing on record to indicate that any writ
petition was filed in this matter or any
proceedings under the Act were pending on
the date of notification under Section 52 (1)
of the act of 1953. In these circumstances,
the order dated 24.04.1993 cannot be
implemented long after closure of the
consolidation operations.

10. When this Court is of the view
that the order dated 24.04.1993 cannot be
implemented, there is no occasion for this
Court to give a direction for expeditious
disposal
of
the
application
for
implementation of the order filed after
more than 30 years since passing of the
order.

11. Accordingly, the petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 396
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 5133 of 2023

Harmeet Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Desh Deepak Gupta ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ratnesh
Chandra,
Ishan
Singh
Popli,
Madhav Om

Counsel for the Respondent:
Gopesh Tripathi

Civil Law- The Constitution of India, 1950Article 227 - The Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - The Uttar Pradesh Regulation of
Urban
Premises
Tenancy
Act,
2021-
Section-38(1)-Act of 2021 confers jurisdiction
on rent authority/rent tribunal to entertain
petitions filed by landlord or eviction/ejectment
of tenant for recovery of arrears of rent and
damages etc. but there is no provision in the
aforesaid act which confers jurisdiction on the
rent authority/rent tribunal to entertain a suit
for perpetual injunction filed by a tenant against
his dispossession otherwise then in accordance
with the law. Therefore, the jurisdiction of Civil
Courts to entertain suits for injunction filed by
tenants against their landlords, is not barred by
the provisions of the Act of 2021 and the Civil
Court continues to have jurisdiction to entertain
the suits for injunction even after enactment of
the Act of 2021.Impugned order set aside.
(Para 10)

Petition allowed. (E-15)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Ratnesh Chandra, the
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Gopesh Tripathi, the learned counsel for
the opposite party.

2. The learned counsel for the
opposite party does not propose to file a
counter affidavit and the petition is being
heard finally with the consent of the
learned counsel for the parties.

3. By means of the instant petition
filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner has challenged
validity of the judgment and order dared
15.11.2022 passed by the learned Civil
Judge (Junior Division), Court No.16
Raebareli in Civil Miscellaneous Case
No.630 of 2022, whereby the suit filed by
the petitioner for the relief of perpetual
injunction
restraining
the
defendant/landlord from evicting him from
a property in his tenancy, otherwise than in
accordance with the law, has been
dismissed at the admission stage on the
ground that Section 38(1) of the U.P
Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy
9 All. Harmeet Singh Vs. Desh Deepak Gupta
397
Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act of 2021') provides that no civil court
shall entertain any suit or proceeding
insofar as it relates to the provisions of the
Act of 2021.

4. The petitioner has also challenged
validity of the judgement and order dated
07.08.2023 passed by the learned First
Additional District Judge, Raebareli in
Civil Revision No.35 of 2022, whereby the
revision has been dismissed and the order
dated 15.11.2022 passed by the Civil Judge
has been affirmed.

5. Sri. Ratnesh Chandra, the learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the Act of 2021 has been enacted to
regulate renting of premises and to protect
the interests of the landlords and tenants
and
to
provide
speedy
adjudication
mechanism for resolution of disputes and
matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto. It contains provisions enabling the
landlord to file a suit for ejectment/
eviction of tenant and for recovery of
arrears of rent and damages etc. but it does
not contain any provision under which a
tenant can file a suit for perpetual
injunction for restraining the landlord from
dispossessing him from the property in his
tenancy otherwise in accordance with law.

6. The learned counsel for the
opposite party contends that the landlord is
not making any effort to dispossess the
petitioner otherwise then in accordance
with law and the petitioner has got no cause
of action to file a suit against the landlord.
However, he does not dispute the legal
submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the Rent Act, 2021 does not
empower the rent authority /rent tribunal to
entertain a suit for perpetual injunction
filed by the tenant.

7. The Uttar Pradesh Regulation Of
Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 [Act
No. 16 Of 2021] is "An Act to establish
Rent Authority and Rent Tribunals to
regulate renting of premises and to protect
the interests of landlords and tenants and
to provide speedy adjudication mechanism
for resolution of disputes and matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto."

8. Various sections of the Act of 2021
contain provisions for making applications
by the landlord and the tenant. A tenant can
file an application under Section 10 of the
Act requesting the Rent Authority to
determine the revised rent in case of
dispute. Section 14 authorises a tenant to
file
an
application
before
the
Rent
Authority for depositing the rent where the
landlord refuses to accept any rent and
other charges payable or refuses to give a
receipt. Section 20 of the Act empowers a
tenant to file an application before the Rent
Authority in case a landlord withholds any
essential supply or service in the premises
occupied by the tenant.

9. Section 21 of the Act of 2021 is
titled
"Protection
of
tenant
against
eviction" and it provides that "A tenant
shall not be evicted during the continuance
of tenancy agreement unless otherwise
agreed to in writing by the landlord and
tenant, except in accordance with the
provisions
of
sub-section
(2)
or
in
accordance with the provisions of section
22" but Section 21(2) of the Act provides
that on an application made to it by the
landlord, the Rent Authority may make an
order
for
eviction
and
recovery
of
possession of the premises. This Section
also does not contain any provision
enabling a tenant to file an application for
protection against apprehended eviction
otherwise than in accordance with the law.
398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. Having gone through the
provisions of the Act of 2021, this Court is
of the considered view that the Act of 2021
confers jurisdiction on rent authority/rent
tribunal to entertain petitions filed by
landlord or eviction/ejectment of tenant for
recovery of arrears of rent and damages etc.
but there is no provision in the aforesaid act
which confers jurisdiction on the rent
authority/rent tribunal to entertain a suit for
perpetual injunction filed by a tenant
against his dispossession otherwise then in
accordance with the law. Therefore, the
jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain
suits for injunction filed by tenants against
their landlords, is not barred by the
provisions of the Act of 2021 and the Civil
Court continues to have jurisdiction to
entertain the suits for injunction even after
enactment of the Act of 2021.

11. By declining to admit the suit for
perpetual injunction filed by the petitioner,
the Civil Judge has failed to exercise a
jurisdiction vested in it by law, which
makes the order passed by the Civil Judge,
as also the order passed by the revisional
court affirming the order of Civil Judge,
unsustainable in law.

12. Accordingly, the petition is
allowed. Order dared 15.11.2022 passed by
the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Court No.16 Raebareli and the order dated
07.08.2023 passed by the learned First
Additional District Judge, Raebareli are set
aside. The Civil Judge is directed to pass
fresh orders regarding admission of the suit
keeping in view the observations made in
this order.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 398
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 5486 of 2024
(Criminal)

Sachin Kumar Tiwari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rahul Kumar Jadaun

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Law- The Constitution of India,
1950-Article 227 - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 457 - The Uttar
Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act,
1955-Section 7(3)- Petitioner/Trust preferred a
Criminal Revision for claiming the expenses incurred
by him to the tune of Rs. 2,52,700/ spent in taking
care of the said cattle from the period 23.08.2023 to
03.10.2023 and seeking further relief to get the said
cattle released in favour of the Trust-Section 7 (3)
Any Goshala or any institution may receive any cow,
bull or bullock for custody from police or any other
person which may be released to the owner on such
terms and conditions and in such manner and on
payment of such charges as may be prescribed-
The Court below has rightly released the cattle in
favour of the respondent no. 4 being the owner of
the seized cows and the calves The petitioner is at
liberty to claim the necessary expenses incurred by
him in taking care of the cattle before the
competent authority. (Para 7 to 10)

Petition disposed of. (E-15)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha
Shukla, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri S.C. Mishra, learned AGA
for the State and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India has