# Nirmal Agarwal v. Pradeep Kumar Gupta

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 874
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-15
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 3112 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nirmal-agarwal-v-pradeep-kumar-gupta-54554
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Landlord-tenant dispute-
Sections 2(b), 2 (d), 10, 33 & 34 of the
U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021- Petition filed by
the tenant- Challenge to the order of the
Rent Authority- Section 10 application by
landlord Trust for determination of rent-
Decided
without
considering
tenant's
objection regarding maintainability.

B. Definition of landlord under Section
2(b) of the Act- includes a person who
receives rent on behalf of owner/lessor-
Secretary of the landlord trust in present
case covered by the definition of landlord-
Form of Information of Tenancy under
Section 4(1) as provided in First Schedule
of the Act- contains correct information-
Application filed by the trust through its
secretary- Application under Section 10
not filed by Secretary in his personal
capacity. (Paragraphs 17 and 18)
HELD:
The definition of Landlord under Section 2 (b)
embraces within its scope landowner or lessor
called by any other name, a person who
receives or is entitled to receive the rent of any
premises, on his own account and includes the
successor, transferee or assignee of such person
as also a trustee or guardian or receiver
receiving rent for the premises on account of or
on behalf of or for the benefit of any other
person such as minor or person of unsound
mind who cannot enter into a contract. (Para
17)

Thus, the definition includes a person who
receives rent on behalf of the owner/lessor as
per Section 2 (b) (ii) of the Act. In the case at
hand, admittedly the tenant petitioner has been
tendering
rent
of
the
premises
to
the
respondent who is the Secretary of Seth Girwar
Lal Pyare Lal Shiksha Trust, Agra/owner/lessor
of the premises as is evident from the rent
7 All. Nirmal Agarwal Vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta
875
receipt filed on record as Annexure-CA-1 to the
counter affidavit which bears the signatures of
the tenant petitioner. The Court is not impressed
by the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the respondent cannot come
within the definition of Landlord under the Act in
view of the fact that the respondent is merely a
Secretary of the Trust and even though entitled
to collect rent at best would qualify as a
Property Manager under Section 2 (d) of the Act
and a Property Manager has not been conferred
with rights to institute any application on behalf
of the landlord for determination of rent or for
the eviction of the tenant. In the opinion of the
Court, the argument is based upon the cause
title of the application under Section 10 of the
U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 wherein the proceedings
have been drawn in the name of the respondent
discharging himself as Secretary of the lessor
Trust. The Court finds substance in the
submissions of the learned counsel for the
respondent that though in the Form for
information of Tenancy under Section 4 (1) of
the Act No. 16 of 2021 before the Rent Authority,
Trust has been described as Landlord through the
Secretary, but in the application

## Text

874 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
hand, rejected the revision, which is not
permissible.

28. Therefore, answer of question
no. 3 is that this Court is of the firm view
that judgment of a Court cannot be contrary
to its finding. While deciding any issue, a
categorical and reasonable finding is
required from the Court and based upon
that, judgment has to be pronounced.
Further, it is not permissible to give a
contrary judgment not corroborating with
the
finding
given.
Therefore,
such
judgment of Revisional Court is bad and
liable to be set aside.

29. In the light of observations
made here-in above, impugned orders dated
02.02.2022 & 18.08.2023 are bad and
hereby set aside.

30. Matter is remanded back to
Judge, Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar
to decide SCC Suit No. 72 of 2015 afresh,
maximum within a period of three months
from the date of production of certified
copy of this order.

31.

With
the
aforesaid
observations, writ petition is allowed.

32. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 874
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 3112 of 2023
Alongwith
other cases

Nirmal Agarwal ...Petitioner
Versus
Pradeep Kumar Gupta ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rishab Agarwal, Sri Tarun Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rama Goel Bansal

A. Civil Law - Landlord-tenant dispute-
Sections 2(b), 2 (d), 10, 33 & 34 of the
U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021- Petition filed by
the tenant- Challenge to the order of the
Rent Authority- Section 10 application by
landlord Trust for determination of rent-
Decided
without
considering
tenant's
objection regarding maintainability.

B. Definition of landlord under Section
2(b) of the Act- includes a person who
receives rent on behalf of owner/lessor-
Secretary of the landlord trust in present
case covered by the definition of landlord-
Form of Information of Tenancy under
Section 4(1) as provided in First Schedule
of the Act- contains correct information-
Application filed by the trust through its
secretary- Application under Section 10
not filed by Secretary in his personal
capacity. (Paragraphs 17 and 18)
HELD:
The definition of Landlord under Section 2 (b)
embraces within its scope landowner or lessor
called by any other name, a person who
receives or is entitled to receive the rent of any
premises, on his own account and includes the
successor, transferee or assignee of such person
as also a trustee or guardian or receiver
receiving rent for the premises on account of or
on behalf of or for the benefit of any other
person such as minor or person of unsound
mind who cannot enter into a contract. (Para
17)

Thus, the definition includes a person who
receives rent on behalf of the owner/lessor as
per Section 2 (b) (ii) of the Act. In the case at
hand, admittedly the tenant petitioner has been
tendering
rent
of
the
premises
to
the
respondent who is the Secretary of Seth Girwar
Lal Pyare Lal Shiksha Trust, Agra/owner/lessor
of the premises as is evident from the rent
7 All. Nirmal Agarwal Vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta
875
receipt filed on record as Annexure-CA-1 to the
counter affidavit which bears the signatures of
the tenant petitioner. The Court is not impressed
by the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the respondent cannot come
within the definition of Landlord under the Act in
view of the fact that the respondent is merely a
Secretary of the Trust and even though entitled
to collect rent at best would qualify as a
Property Manager under Section 2 (d) of the Act
and a Property Manager has not been conferred
with rights to institute any application on behalf
of the landlord for determination of rent or for
the eviction of the tenant. In the opinion of the
Court, the argument is based upon the cause
title of the application under Section 10 of the
U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 wherein the proceedings
have been drawn in the name of the respondent
discharging himself as Secretary of the lessor
Trust. The Court finds substance in the
submissions of the learned counsel for the
respondent that though in the Form for
information of Tenancy under Section 4 (1) of
the Act No. 16 of 2021 before the Rent Authority,
Trust has been described as Landlord through the
Secretary, but in the application under Section 10
of the Act, the description has been wrongly
mentioned and the error has been sought to be
rectified by moving appropriate amendment
application, which is pending consideration. This
Court finds that the attempt made by the
respondent in curing the defect of the Section 10.
Application is of utmost importance in view of it
being a curable defect. The Form of Information of
Tenancy under Section 4 (1) of the Act as provided
in the First Schedule of the Act 16 of 2021 has
been brought on record as Annexure-CA-1 to the
counter affidavit. From the materials brought on
record, it does not appear to be a case of
challenge to the title of the landlord. The Court
after perusal of the materials on record comes to
the conclusion that the application under Section
10 of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 has been filed by
the Trust Seth Girwar Lal Pyare Lal Shiksha Trust,
Agra through the Secretary Shri Pradeep Kumar
Gupta and not by Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta in his
own capacity claiming exclusive ownership of the
premises and is maintainable. The issue No. 1 is
decided accordingly. (Para 18)

C. Application preferred by tenant under
Order VII Rule 11 of CPC- read with
Section 34 (1) (h) of the Act- Held not
maintainable- Section 33 of the Act-
Nothing contained in CPC would apply to
Rent Authority and Rent Tribunal- Order
VII Rule 11 of CPC not covered under
Section 34 (1) (h) of the Act- Contrary to
the scheme of the Act . (Paragraphs 19 to
24)
HELD:
In the opinion of the Court, the provisions of
Order 7 Rule 11 would not be covered under
Section 34 (1) (h) of the Act since it would run
contrary to the scheme of the Act. A bare
perusal of Section 33 of the Act goes onto show
that the legislature has specifically excluded the
application of the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 except as provided for in the
Act. The same provision further provides that
the Rent Authority/Tribunal shall be guided by
the principles of natural justice and have the
power to regulate their own procedure subject
to the sub-clauses (a) to (e). Sub-clauses (a) to
(e) lay down the procedure that is to be
followed by a Rent Authority/Tribunal on receipt
of an application/appeal by a landlord or a
tenant. Thereafter, sub-clause (b) provides for
notices to be issued to the other party. Subclause (c) permits the other party to file their
reply to the application/appeal. Sub-clause (d)
allows the original applicant/appellant to file
their rejoinder, if they so wish to. Thereafter,
sub-clause
(e)
provides
that
the
Rent
Authority/Tribunal
shall
fix
a
date
for
hearing/disposing off the application/appeal
finally. (Para 21)

The Court finds substance in the submissions of
learned counsel for the respondent that the
application under Section 7 Rule 11 CPC would
not be maintainable even otherwise as liberty
has
already
been
granted
to
the
tenant/petitioner to take all objections in the
written statement to the application under
Section 10 of the Act. The issue No. 2 is decided
accordingly. (Para 24)

D. Impugned order upheld- No illegality in
declining to decide the application of the
petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC
read with Section 34 (1) (h) of the Act-
More so as opportunity to raise objections
in
written
statement
already
given-
Petition dismissed.
HELD:
876 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Now, coming to the issue No. 3, the Court after
hearing the parties and perusing the materials
on record and in view of the discussion
hereinabove comes to the conclusion that the
impugned order dated 1.3.2023 passed by the
Rent Authority cannot be said to suffer from
patent illegality by declining to decide the
application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule
11 CPC read with Section 34 (1) (h) of the U.P.
Act No. 16 of 2021 inasmuch as opportunity has
already been granted to the petitioner to take all
objections as to the maintainability of the
application under Section 10 of the Act in the
written statement to be considered at the final
hearing stage. (Para 25)

Petition dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. 2005 (10) SCC 274

2. 2017 SCC Online All 1356

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh
Srivastava, J.)

1. All the above referred petitions
involve identical questions of law and facts.
The petition, being Matters under Article
227 No. - 3112 of 2023 is being treated as
the leading petition and the facts pertaining
to the same are being considered for
deciding the controversy involved.

2. Heard Shri Rishabh Agarwal,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.
Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel who
has put in appearance on behalf of the sole
respondent.

3. The petition, being No. 3112 of
2023, under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India has been filed questioning the
order dated 1.3.2023 passed by the Addl.
District Magistrate (EC)/Rent Authority,
Agra in Case No. 1116 of 2022 (Pradeep
Kumar
Gupta
versus
Nirmal
Kumar
Agarwal). A suitable direction to the Addl.
District Magistrate (EC)/Rent Authority,
Agra to adjudicate upon the issue of
maintainability of the application under
Section 10 of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021
at the instance of the sole respondent has
been sought.

4. By the order impugned, the
Addl.
District
Magistrate
(EC)/Rent
Authority,
Agra
has
entertained
the
application of the sole respondent for
determination of rent under Section 10 of
the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 without
considering the objection of the tenant
petitioner to the maintainability of the
application itself granting liberty to take all
objections at the time of filing reply to the
application under Section 10 of the Act.

5. The undisputed facts necessary
for adjudicating the controversy involved in
the instant petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India are that the petitioner
herein is tenant of a shop on the ground
floor of property No. 31/58-59, Kokamal
Market, Rawatpara, Agra let out to him by
Seth Girwar Lal Pyare Lal Shiksha Trust.
The petitioner has been regularly tendering
the rent of the tenanted premises to the
aforesaid Trust and receipts have been
issued by the Trust.

6. It has been submitted that an
application under Section 10 of the Act for
determination of the rent of the premises
has been filed by the sole respondent Shri
Padeep Kumar Gupta in the capacity of
Secretary of Girwar Lal Pyare Lal Shiksha
Trust. The said application under Section
10 has been objected to by the petitioner by
filing an application dated 20.1.2023 under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 34
(1) (h) of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021. In
the said application besides an objection as
7 All. Nirmal Agarwal Vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta
877
to the deficiency in the payment of the
Court Fee, the petitioner has raised specific
objection to the maintainability of the
application at the behest of the respondent
on the ground that the Trust has not been
impleaded as a party to the application
under Section 10 of the U.P. Act No. 16 of
2021.

7. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the learned Addl.
District Magistrate (EC)/Rent Authority,
Agra
has
manifestly
erred
in
not
considering the objections of the petitioner
to the maintainability of the application and
instead of deciding the same upfront has
directed the petitioner to instead file his
written statement and take all objections
which shall be considered at the time of
final arguments.

8. Learned counsel for the
petitioner vehemently submits that an
application under Section 10 of the U.P.
Act No. 16 of 2021 can be filed only by the
landlord. As per Section 2(b) of the U.P.
Act No. 16 of 2021 'Landlord' means a
person who receives or is entitled to receive
the rent of any premises and includes a
Trustee. The respondent admittedly is only
a Secretary of the Trust. The Secretary of
the Trust is not statutorily recognized as
Landlord and even though he may be
entitled to collect rent, at best, he would
qualify as a property Manager under
Section 2 (d) and a property manager has
not been conferred with any rights to
institute any application on behalf of the
Landlord for determination of rent or for
eviction.

9. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has tried to draw a distinction
between the definition of 'Landlord' as
contained in U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and
U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021. Landlord as per
the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in relation to a
building has been described to mean a
person to whom its rent is or if the
buildings were let, would be payable and
includes except in Clause (g) the agent or
attorney, or such person. Thus, according to
learned counsel for the petitioner under the
U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 it is only the
actual owner or person authorized by him
for receiving notice or letting out the
premises who will be the landlord. The
position under the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021
is, however, different and landlord means a
person who receives or is entitled to receive
the rent of any premises and includes a
Trustee. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that all the trustees of the
Trust
have
since
expired
and
the
respondent cannot continue to act on behalf
of the Trust and maintain any application
on behalf of the Landlord/Trust. Reliance is
placed upon the decision of the Apex Court
reported in 2005 (10) SCC 274 and a
decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court reported in 2017 SCC Online All
1356 to buttress the point that the issue of
maintainability of a proceeding is to be
decided first before passing any order. It is
accordingly prayed that this Court may
either decide the issue of maintainability or
remit the matter to the Rent Authority for
decision on the issue of maintainability.

10. Smt. Rama Goel Bansal,
learned counsel appearing for the sole
respondent has filed counter affidavit in
opposition to the petition and submits that
the petitioner is a tenant of the ground floor
of the premises No. 31/58-59 Kokamal
Market, Rawatpura, Agra at the rate of Rs.
1212/- per month. The rent is very low
considering the location of the premises
which can command a rental of at least Rs.
100/- per square feet, which works out to
878 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rs. 14,500/- per month besides taxes and
GST. The petitioner is a defaulter in
payment of rent since 01.04.2021 and legal
notice has already been sent on 12.09.2022
through registered post which has been
duly served on 14.09.2022. Proceedings
under Section 10 of the UP Act No. 16 of
2021 has been drawn against the petitioner.
The petitioner has taken an objection to the
maintainability of the application under
Section 10 of the UP Act No. 16 of 2021
which does not merit consideration. In the
form for information of tenancy under
Section 4 (1) of the Act No. 16 of 2021
before the Rent Authority as specified in
the 1st Schedule, in the first column
description of landlord has been mentioned
as Seth Girwar Lal Pyare Lal Shiksha Trust
31/58-59, Kokamal Market Rawatpura,
Agra through Secretary Mr. Pradeep
Kumar Gupta but in the application under
Section 10 the description has been
wrongly mentioned by typographical error
which is a curable defect and to remove the
said defect an amendment has already been
sought which is pending. The objections
have been taken just to delay the
proceedings. It is also stated in the counter
affidavit that the application moved by the
petitioner purportedly under Order 7 Rule
11 CPC is not maintainable in view of the
provisions made under Section 33 of the
UP Act No. 16 of 2021 which provides for
the procedure to be followed by the Rent
Authority and Rent Tribunal and further
provides that nothing contained in CPC,
1908 shall be applied to the Rent Authority
or Rent Tribunal which shall be guided by
the principles of natural justice and shall
have power to regulate their own procedure
in the manner as provided in the section
itself. It has also been stated that the
application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is
not maintainable and liberty has already
been granted to the petitioner to take all
objections in the written statement to be
filed to the proceedings under Section 10 of
the Act. It is also stated that no
prejudice/injustice has been caused to the
petitioner as full opportunity to raise the
issue of non maintainability of the
application under Section 10 has been
provided to the petitioner.

11. In the supplementary counter
affidavit certain exemplars have been
brought on record to demonstrate that the
premises under the tenancy of the petitioner
can fetch rent to the tune of Rs.14,500/- per
month.

12. In the rejoinder affidavit the
averments made in the counter affidavit
have been denied and averments made in
the petition have been reiterated.

13. By way of a supplementary
rejoinder affidavit, learned counsel for the
petitioner
has
brought
on
record
proceedings of Civil Suit No. 32 of 2014
filed for eviction of a tenant before the
Civil Court at Morina (MP) by Shri
Pradeep Gupta in which evidence of Shri
Pradeep Gupta was recorded and the said
Pradeep Gupta admitted in his cross
examination that the registered trustees of
the Trust had already expired and the
Application under Section 10 of the UP Act
No. 16 of 2021 is clearly without
Authority.

14. I have heard the learned
counsels for the parties and have perused
the record. From the arguments advanced
and perusal of the materials on record. The
following questions fall for consideration in
the present petition:

 "I. Whether the Application under
Section 10 of the UP Act No. 16 of 2021
7 All. Nirmal Agarwal Vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta
879
has been filed at the behest of Sri Pradeep
Kumar
Gupta
describing
himself
as
Secretary Seth Girwar Lal Pyare Lal
Shiksha Trust and claiming himself to be
exclusive landlord of the premises under
the tenancy of the petitioner rendering the
application non maintainable as asserted by
the petitioner or has been filed by the Trust
through the Secretary Sri Pradeep Kumar
Gupta of the Trust as asserted by the
respondent?

 ii. Whether the Application under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 34
(1)(h) of the UP Act No. 16 of 2021 is
maintainable?

 iii. Whether the order dated
01.03.2023 passed by the Rent Authority
can be said to suffer from patent illegality
by declining to decide the Application of
the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC
read with Section 34 (1)(h) of the UP Act
No. 16 of 2021 but at the same time
granting opportunity to the petitioner to
take all objections as to the maintainability
of the Application under Section 10 of the
Act in the written statement to the
Application under Section 10 to be
considered at the final hearing stage?"

15. Admittedly, the petitioner is a
tenant of the ground floor of the premises
No. 31/58-59 Kokamal Market, Rawatpura,
Agra which premises is owned by Seth
Girwar Lal Pyare Lal Shiksha Trust, Agra.

16. In order to appreciate the rival
contentions of the learned counsels for the
parties, it would be apt to analyze the
definition of "Landlord" under the U.P.
Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy
Act, 2021. The definition is contained in
Section 2 (b) of the Act which is quoted as
under:-
 2. (b) "Landlord",

 "landlord",
whether
called
landowner or lessor or by any other name,
means a person who receives or is entitled
to receive, the rent of any premises, on his
own account, if the premises were let to a
tenant, and shall include ?

 (i)
successor,
transferee
or
assignee;

 (ii) a trustee or guardian or
receiver receiving rent for any premises or
entitled to so receive, on account of or on
behalf of or for the benefit of, any other
person such as minor or person of unsound
mind who cannot enter into a contract;

17. The definition of Landlord
under Section 2 (b) embraces within its
scope landowner or lessor called by any
other name, a person who receives or is
entitled to receive the rent of any premises,
on his own account and includes the
successor, transferee or assignee of such
person as also a trustee or guardian or
receiver receiving rent for the premises on
account of or on behalf of or for the benefit
of any other person such as minor or person
of unsound mind who cannot enter into a
contract.

18. Thus, the definition includes a
person who receives rent on behalf of the
owner/lessor as per Section 2 (b) (ii) of the
Act. In the case at hand, admittedly the
tenant petitioner has been tendering rent of
the premises to the respondent who is the
Secretary of Seth Girwar Lal Pyare Lal
Shiksha Trust, Agra/owner/lessor of the
premises as is evident from the rent receipt
filed on record as Annexure-CA-1 to the
counter affidavit which bears the signatures
of the tenant petitioner. The Court is not
880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
impressed by the submissions of learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
that
the
respondent
cannot
come
within
the
definition of Landlord under the Act in
view of the fact that the respondent is
merely a Secretary of the Trust and even
though entitled to collect rent at best would
qualify as a Property Manager under
Section 2 (d) of the Act and a Property
Manager has not been conferred with rights
to institute any application on behalf of the
landlord for determination of rent or for the
eviction of the tenant. In the opinion of the
Court, the argument is based upon the
cause title of the application under Section
10 of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 wherein
the proceedings have been drawn in the
name of the respondent discharging himself
as Secretary of the lessor Trust. The Court
finds substance in the submissions of the
learned counsel for the respondent that
though in the Form for information of
Tenancy under Section 4 (1) of the Act No.
16 of 2021 before the Rent Authority, Trust
has been described as Landlord through the
Secretary, but in the application under
Section 10 of the Act, the description has
been wrongly mentioned and the error has
been sought to be rectified by moving
appropriate amendment application, which
is pending consideration. This Court finds
that the attempt made by the respondent in
curing the defect of the Section 10.
Application is of utmost importance in
view of it being a curable defect. The Form
of Information of Tenancy under Section 4
(1) of the Act as provided in the First
Schedule of the Act 16 of 2021 has been
brought on record as Annexure-CA-1 to the
counter affidavit. From the materials
brought on record, it does not appear to be
a case of challenge to the title of the
landlord. The Court after perusal of the
materials
on
record
comes
to
the
conclusion that the application under
Section 10 of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021
has been filed by the Trust Seth Girwar Lal
Pyare Lal Shiksha Trust, Agra through the
Secretary Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta and
not by Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta in his
own capacity claiming exclusive ownership
of the premises and is maintainable. The
issue No. 1 is decided accordingly.

19. Now coming to the issue No. 2
as to whether the application under Order
7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 34 (i) (h)
of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 is
maintainable or not, the Court finds that
Section 33 of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021
which deals with the procedure to be
followed by the Rent Authority and Rent
Tribunal has specifically laid down that
nothing contained in the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908) shall
apply to the Rent Authority and Rent
Tribunal and they have been conferred
with
power
to
regulate
their
own
procedure in the manner detailed in the
section and such authorities shall be
guided by the principles of natural justice.
The provision of Section 33 of the U.P.
Act No. 16 of 2021 is quoted hereunder:-

 33. Procedure to be followed in
Rent Authority and Rent Tribunal - (1)
Save as provided in this Act, nothing
contained in the Code of Civil Procedure
1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908) shall apply to the
Rent Authority and Rent Tribunal, which
shall be guided by the principles of natural
justice and shall have power to regulate
their own procedure in the following
manner, namely :?

 (a) the landlord or the tenant may
file an application or appeal before the Rent
Authority or Rent Tribunal, as the case may
be,
accompanied
by
affidavit
and
documents, if any;
7 All. Nirmal Agarwal Vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta
881
 (b) the Rent Authority or Rent
Tribunal, as the case may be, shall then
issue
notice
to
the
opposite
party,
accompanied by copies of application or
appeal, affidavit and documents;

 (c) the opposite party shall file a
reply
accompanied
by
affidavit
and
documents, if any, after serving a copy of
the same to the applicant;

 (d) the applicant may file a
rejoinder, if any, after serving the copy to
the opposite party;

 (e) the Rent Authority or Rent
Tribunal, as the case may be, shall fix a
date of hearing and may hold such
summary inquiry as it deems necessary.

 (2) The Rent Authority or Rent
Tribunal, as the case may be, shall
endeavour
to
dispose
the
case
as
expeditiously as possible, not exceeding a
period of more than sixty days from the
date of receipt of the application or appeal:

 Provided that where any such
application or appeal, as the case may be
could not be disposed of within the said
period of sixty days, the Rent Authority or
Rent Tribunal, as the case may be, shall
record its reasons in writing for not
disposing of the application or appeal
within that period.

 (3) In every application or appeal,
before the Rent Authority or Rent Tribunal,
as the case may be, the evidence of a
witness shall be given by affidavit:

 Provided that the Rent Authority
or Rent Tribunal, as the case may be, may
where it appears to it that it is necessary in
the interest of justice to call a witness for
examination or cross-examination, order
attendance of such witness to be present for
examination or cross-examination.

 (4) The provisions of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908)
regarding service of summons shall be
applicable mutatis mutandis for service of
notice by the Rent Authority or Rent
Tribunal. In addition to the said mode of
service, the service of notice to landlord or
tenant may also be effected through e-mail,
Whatsapp, SMS or other recognized
electronic mode.

 (5) Every application or appeal
shall be in such form as may be prescribed.

 (6) The Rent Authority or Rent
Tribunal, as the case may be, shall not
allow more than three adjournment at the
request
of
a
party
throughout
the
proceedings and in case of reasonable and
sufficient cause to do so, it shall record the
reasons for the same in writing and order
the party requesting adjournment to pay a
reasonable cost.

 (7)
Every
application
under
clauses (a), (b), (e), (f) and (g) of subsection (2) of Section 21 or under Section
22 shall be decided within ninety days from
the date of filing of such application before
the Rent Authority.

 (8) The Rent Authority shall
decide every application filed under clause
(c) and (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 21
within thirty days from the date of filing of
such application.

20. Section 34 of the U.P. Act No.
16 of 2021 permits limited application of
the provisions of the Code of Civil
882 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Procedure, 1908 as is evident from the
Section 34 of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021
quoted hereunder:-

 34. Powers of Rent Authority
and Rent Tribunal.-(1) The Rent Authority
and
the
Rent
Tribunal
shall,
for
discharging their functions under this Act,
have the same powers as are vested in a
Civil Court under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908) for the
purposes of, ?

 (a) summoning and enforcing the
attendance of any person and examining
him on oath;

 (b) requiring the discovery and
production of documents;

 (c)
issuing
commission
for
examination of the witnesses or documents;

 (d) issuing commission for local
investigation;

 (e)
receiving
evidence
on
affidavits;

 (f ) dismissing an application or
appeal for default or deciding it ex-parte;

 (g) setting aside any order of
dismissal of any application or appeal for
default or any other order passed by it exparte;

 (h) any other matter, which may
be prescribed.

 (2) Any proceedings before the
Rent Authority or Rent Tribunal shall be
deemed to be a judicial proceeding within
the meaning of Section 193 and 228, and
for the purpose of Section 196, of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of
1860); and the Rent Authority and the Rent
Tribunal shall be deemed to be a civil court
for the purposes of Section 195 and
Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974).

 (3) For the purposes of holding
any inquiry or discharging any duty under
this Act, the Rent Authority may,?

 (a) after giving not less than
twenty-four hours' notice in writing, enter
and inspect or authorize any officer,
subordinate to it, to enter and inspect, any
premises at any time between sunrise and
sunset;

 (b) by written order, require any
person to produce for its inspection such
books or documents relevant to the inquiry,
at such time and at such place as may be
specified in the order.

 (4) The Rent Authority may, if it
thinks fit, appoint one or more persons
having special knowledge of the matter
under consideration as an assessor or
valuer to advise it in the proceedings
before it.

 (5) Any clerical or arithmetical
mistake in any order passed by the Rent
Authority or any other error arising out of
any accidental omission may, at any time,
be corrected by the Rent Authority on an
application received by it in this behalf
from any of the parties or otherwise.

 (6) The Rent Authority may
exercise
the
powers
of
a
Judicial
Magistrate of the first class for the
recovery of the fine under the provisions of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act
No. 2 of 1974) and the Rent Authority shall
7 All. Nirmal Agarwal Vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta
883
be deemed to be a Magistrate under the
said Code for the purposes of such
recovery.

 (7) An order made by a Rent
Authority or an order passed in appeal
under this Chapter shall be executable by
the Rent Authority as a decree of a Civil
Court and for this purpose, the Rent
Authority shall have the powers of a Civil
Court.

 (8) The Rent Authority may set
aside or recall any order passed ex-parte if
the aggrieved party files an application and
satisfies it that the notice was not duly
served or that he was prevented by any
sufficient cause from appearing when the
case was taken up for hearing.

 (9) Save as otherwise expressly
provided in this Act, every order made by
the Rent Authority shall, subject to decision
in appeal, be final and shall not be called
in question in any original suit, application
or execution proceedings.

21. In the opinion of the Court, the
provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 would not be
covered under Section 34 (1) (h) of the Act
since it would run contrary to the scheme
of the Act. A bare perusal of Section 33 of
the Act goes onto show that the legislature
has specifically excluded the application of
the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 except as provided for in
the Act. The same provision further
provides that the Rent Authority/Tribunal
shall be guided by the principles of natural
justice and have the power to regulate their
own procedure subject to the sub-clauses
(a) to (e). Sub-clauses (a) to (e) lay down
the procedure that is to be followed by a
Rent Authority/Tribunal on receipt of an
application/appeal by a landlord or a tenant.
Thereafter, sub-clause (b) provides for
notices to be issued to the other party. Subclause (c) permits the other party to file
their reply to the application/appeal. Subclause
(d)
allows
the
original
applicant/appellant to file their rejoinder, if
they so wish to. Thereafter, sub-clause (e)
provides that the Rent Authority/Tribunal
shall fix a date for hearing/disposing off the
application/appeal finally.

22. It is pertinent to note here that
as per the Scheme of the Act, the entire
exercise is to be completed within a
specific period and reasons have to be
mandatorily
recorded
in
case
the
application/appeal is not disposed of within
the stipulated period.

23. Section 33 (4) of the Act
makes the provisions regarding service of
summons (particularly Order 5 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908) applicable to the
proceedings
before
the
Rent
Authority/Tribunal. This Court finds that
there is no similar provision adopting the
provision relating to rejection of Plaint
(Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908) in the entirety of the Act.
Even otherwise, in the opinion of the Court,
the adoption of the provisions of Order 7
Rule 11 CPC would run counter productive
to the scheme of the Act as it would result
in unnecessary delays. Importantly, it is to
be noted that the other party can raise the
same objections which would have raised
in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in their
reply which is permitted under sub-clause
(c) of Section 33 (1) of the Act.

24. The Court finds substance in
the submissions of learned counsel for the
respondent that the application under
Section 7 Rule 11 CPC would not be
884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
maintainable even otherwise as liberty has
already
been
granted
to
the
tenant/petitioner to take all objections in
the written statement to the application
under Section 10 of the Act. The issue No.
2 is decided accordingly.

25. Now, coming to the issue No.
3, the Court after hearing the parties and
perusing the materials on record and in
view of the discussion hereinabove comes
to the conclusion that the impugned order
dated 1.3.2023 passed by the Rent
Authority cannot be said to suffer from
patent illegality by declining to decide the
application of the petitioner under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC read with Section 34 (1) (h)
of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 inasmuch as
opportunity has already been granted to the
petitioner to take all objections as to the
maintainability of the application under
Section 10 of the Act in the written
statement to be considered at the final
hearing stage.

26. Consequently, the Court finds no
merit in all the aforesaid writ petitions. All
the aforesaid writ petitions are accordingly
dismissed. The interim order operating is
discharged. The Rent Authority is, however,
directed to decide the application under
Section 10 of the Act No. 16 of 2021 with all
expedition preferably within Sixty days as
mandated by Section 33 (2) of the U.P. Act
No. 16 of 2021 from the date of service of
certified copy of the order of this Court. No
order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 884
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.
Matters Under Article 227 No. 4420 of 2022

Mrs. Anupama Dwivedi & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Pradeep Kumar Shukla, Sri Skand Bajpai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Abhishek Bhatnagar, A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Sri
Saurabh Misra

A. Civil Law - Consumer protection law-
Consumer Protection Act, 2019- Consumer
Protection
(Consumer
Commission
Procedure) Regulations 2020- Respondent
insurance
company
repudiated
the
insurance
claim
of
the
petitioner-
Petitioners filed complaint before DCDRC-
Notice issued- written statement filed and
accepted after passage of statutory period
of 45 days- Order challenged in revision
before UPSCDRC- UPSCDRC upheld the
order passed by DCDRC- both orders
under challenge.

B. DCDRC accepted the written statement
after 30 days- without any application by
respondents seeking 15 days extra time-
Section 38 (2) (a) of the Act, 2019-
verbatim similar to Section 13(1) (a) of
the
Consumer
Protection
Act,
1986-
Written statement cannot be accepted
after 45 days- DCDRC does not have
jurisdiction to accept written statement
after 45 days- amounts to unwarranted
jurisdiction not possessed- gross abuse of
exercise of jurisdiction- objection, if any,
has to be raised on the first date of
appearance. (Paras 18 to 22)
HELD:
From the perusal of the statutory provisions and
judgments, it is clear that after 45 days, the
written statement cannot be accepted meaning
thereby after 45 days, D.C.D.R.C. is not having
any jurisdiction to accept the written statement.
In the present case, after about more than 168
days as far as it is related to the notice upon
respondent no. 4 and after about more than 155