# Ratan Lal Jaiswal Revisionist v. Smt. Sunita Devi

- **Citation:** (2023) 11 ILRA 229
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-24
- **Case number:** S.C.C. Revision No. 62 of 2023
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ratan-lal-jaiswal-revisionist-v-smt-sunita-devi-49428
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Small Causes Court Act, 1887section
25-Applicability
of
ActDefendant/revisionist has filed an application
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC- on the ground that
the suit filed by the plaintiff-opposite party is
not maintainable in the Court of Judge Small
Causes Court- plaint averment that the tenancy
was for fixed -after expiry of fixed term - a
notice, demanding arrear of rent, damages for
use and occupation and vacant possession of
the shop was made by the plaintiff- the
provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not
applicable, the suit for recovery of arrears of
rent is maintainable only in SCC Court- section
16 of the Small Causes Court Act- no other
Court will have jurisdiction to try the suit- the
SCC suit is maintainable. (E-9)

Cases cited:

## Text

11 All. Ratan Lal Jaiswal Vs. Smt. Sunita Devi
229
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 229
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

S.C.C. Revision No. 62 of 2023

Ratan Lal Jaiswal ...Revisionist
Versus
Smt. Sunita Devi ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Suresh Srivastava, Sri Abhishek, Jyoti

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Ashvanee Kumar Srivastava, Sri Vineet
Kumar Singh, Sri Vishal Pandey

Civil Law - Small Causes Court Act, 1887section
25-Applicability
of
ActDefendant/revisionist has filed an application
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC- on the ground that
the suit filed by the plaintiff-opposite party is
not maintainable in the Court of Judge Small
Causes Court- plaint averment that the tenancy
was for fixed -after expiry of fixed term - a
notice, demanding arrear of rent, damages for
use and occupation and vacant possession of
the shop was made by the plaintiff- the
provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not
applicable, the suit for recovery of arrears of
rent is maintainable only in SCC Court- section
16 of the Small Causes Court Act- no other
Court will have jurisdiction to try the suit- the
SCC suit is maintainable. (E-9)

Cases cited:

1. Amit Gupta Vs Gulab Chand Kanodia, 2023
(6) ADJ 191

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
defendant-revisionist
and
Mr.
Vineet
Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
plaintiff-opposite party.

2. The present SCC Revision has been
filed by the revisionist, under section 25 of
the Small Causes Court Act, 1887,
challenging the judgment and order dated
21.11.2022
passed
by
the
learned
Additional District & Session Judge,
F.T.C.-2 (under Section 14 of the Finance
Commissioner), Gorakhpur in SCC Suit
No. 2 of 2021 (Sunita Devi Vs. Ratan Lal
Jaiswal).

3. The facts as stated in the affidavit
are that the plaintiff/Sunita Devi has
instituted SCC Suit No. 2 of 2021, in the
Court of Judge Small Causes Court
Gorakhpur on 19.1.2021, the plaint of the
said suit is annexed as annexure-1 to the
affidavit. As per the plaint averment, a
registered rent agreement dated 11.6.2015
was executed between the plaintiff/Sunita
Devi and Ratan Lal/defendant for letting
out the shop, measuring 10x14 i.e. 140
square feet. The boundaries of the shop
have been mentioned in the plaint. As per
the registered rent agreement, the monthly
rent of the shop was Rs. 6000/-. The term
of the rent agreement was from 1.7.2015 to
30.6.2020.

4. It is further stated in the plaint that
the tenant/revisionist was in arrears of rent
from 1.1.2020 to 30.6.2020. After expiry of
term
of
the
rent
agreement,
the
defendant/revisionist has not vacated the
shop in dispute, accordingly, a notice dated
17.9.2020 was given, terminating the
tenancy and demanding arrears of rent. The
suit was instituted by the plaintiff- opposite
party for recovery of arrears of rent,
damages for use and occupation as well as
possession of the shop.
230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. The defendant/revisionist has filed
an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
on 8.7.2022, which was numbered as paper
No. 25Ga, on the ground that the suit filed
by the plaintiff-opposite party is not
maintainable, in the Court of Judge Small
Causes Court, in view of the provisions
contained in Uttar Pradesh Regulation of
Urban
Premises
Tenancy
Act,
2021
(hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2021").

6. An objection was filed by the
plaintiff-opposite
party
on
22.7.2022,
stating therein that in view of section 46 of
the Act of 2021, all the cases and
proceedings pending under the Act of 1972
at the commencement of Act of 2021 shall
be continued to be enforced. Further
objection has been raised that as per section
6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the
second ordinance of 2021 was approved by
the State Cabinet on 5.4.2021, replacing the
provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 and since
the suit in question has been filed on
19.1.2021, hence the same is to be
continued by the Judge Small Causes and
the provision of Act of 2021 are not
applicable.

7. The trial Court relying upon section
16 of the Provincial Small Causes Court
Act, 1887, held that the suit has been filed
under the provisions of Provincial Small
Causes Court Act, 1887, as such, the suit is
maintainable before the Judge Small
Causes Court and rejected the application
filed by the defendant/revisionist under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. by the impugned
order.

8. It is argued by the learned counsel
for the revisionist that all the suits relating
to the tenancy are governed under the
provisions of Act of 2021 and jurisdiction
of Judge Small Causes is also barred in
view of the provisions contained in Act of
2021. The learned counsel for the opposite
party
has
argued
that
the
rent
of
accommodation was Rs. 6000/- per month
and tenancy was created through registered
rent deed. As the rent was Rs. 6000/- per
month, the provisions contained in U.P. Act
No. 13 of 1972 will not apply. He further
argued that the suit was not instituted under
the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
It is further argued by the learned counsel
for the opposite party that in view of
provisions contained under section 16 of
the Provincial Small Causes Court Act,
1887, the suit is cognizable by the Judge
Small Causes Court and the provisions
contained in Act of 2021 are not applicable.
The learned counsel for the opposite party
has further relied upon a judgment dated
15.5.2022 delivered by Coordinate Bench
of this Court in SCC Revision No. 158 of
2022 (Amit Gupta Vs. Gulab Chand
Kanodia), reported in 2023 (6) ADJ 191.

9. In the aforesaid judgment, two
following questions were formulated for
consideration, namely-

"(a). Whether a Small Cause Suit
already instituted, since prior to coming
into force of the new Tenancy Act, 2021 and
so
also
such
SCC
revision
arising
therefrom would stand saved or the SCC
suit and SCC Revision being not mentioned
in the repeal and saving clause of Section
46, the proceedings of such suit and
revision would stand abated; and

(b). Whether the bar created
under Section 38 of the Tenancy Act is not
an absolute one and so Small Cause Suit
for arrears of recovery of Rent and Eviction
(SCC Suit) and SCC Revision arising
therefrom would still be maintainable even
after the enforcement of the New Tenancy
Act, 2021 qua the of tenancies not covered
11 All. Ratan Lal Jaiswal Vs. Smt. Sunita Devi
231
by tenancy agreements provided for under
Tenancy Act, 2021."

10. The Coordinate Bench of this
Court,
after
considering
the
entire
provisions of Act of 2021, Small Causes
Court Act & Transfer of Property Act
answered the question No. A in paragraph
84 which is reproduced below:-

"84. Thus to sum up on fist
question "(a), I hold that pending SCC suits
and SCC revisions on the date of
enforcement of the new Tenancy Act, 2021,
shall
not
abate
notwithstanding
the
provisions as contained under Section 42 of
the New Tenancy Act, 2021 as no such
intendment can be drawn inasmuch as,
Section 6 of General Clauses Act would
apply. Still further SCC suits would stand
saved as where conceived of under old Rent
Control Act, proceedings whereof have
been saved under sub section 2 of Section
46 of the new Tenancy Act, 2021."

11. The Coordinate Bench of this
Court, further answered question No. B in
paragraph 107, which reads as under:-

"107. To sum up on question "(b)"
I am of the view and so hold that Small
Cause Suits would still be maintainable in
cases of tenancies not covered under
Section 4 and relating to rights accrued, if
any under the Transfer Property Act, 1882
where a tanancy is unwritten, and a
tenancy is on month to month basis.
Overriding effect of Section 42 will give
way to the Central Act, and there could be
no doubt about that if the Central Act has
occupied the field to certain extent."

12. It is well settled law that while
deciding the application under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC only plaint averment has to be
taken into consideration.

13. In the plaint, it is specifically
stated that the tenancy was created through
registered rent agreement dated 11.6.2015
and rate of rent was Rs. 6000/- per month.

14. As per paragraph 3 of the plaint
averment the tenancy was for fixed term
i.e. 1.7.2015 to 30.6.2020. After expiry of
fixed term i.e. 30.6.2020, though no notice
was required, but a notice, demanding
arrear of rent, damages for use and
occupation and vacant possession of the
shop was made by the plaintiff.

15. As the provisions of U.P. Act No.
13 of 1972 are not applicable, the suit for
recovery of arrears of rent is maintainable
only in SCC Court, in view of the
provisions contained under section 16 of
the Small Causes Court Act, no other Court
will have jurisdiction to try the suit.

16. The Coordinate Bench of this
Court, while answering the question No. B
has also held that the suit will be triable by
the Judge Small Causes Court, as the
Central Act has occupied the field to certain
extent.

17. The suit is for recovery of rent
and damages, the rent agreement was for
fixed term upto 30.6.2020. It is not case of
defendant that tenancy is covered under
Section 4 of the Act of 2021. After
30.6.2020, the tenancy is unwritten. Hence
in view of para 107 of Amit Gupta case
(supra) the SCC suit is maintainable.

18. In view of the above, this Court is
of the opinion that the order passed by the
Additional District & Session Judge,
232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
F.T.C.- 2 (under Section 14 of the Finance
Commissioner),
Gorakhpur
dated
21.11.2022 in SCC Revision No. 2 of 2021
(Sunita Devi Vs. Ratan Lal Jaiswal) is
absolutely perfect and valid order and does
not call for any interference.

19. The revision is devoid of merits
and is liable to be dismissed.

20. Accordingly, the revision is
Dismissed.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 232
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.11.2023
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 5782 of 2023

Neelam Shukla & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Balika Shukla & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Samarth Saxena, Durgesh Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:

Interim Injunction-name of the petitioner
no.1 was recorded, being widow- permanent
injunction has been filed by the respondents-
petitioner no.1 has executed the sale deed in
favour of the petitioner nos.2 to 4 despite the
stay of PA-11 entry in her favour- the
petitioner no.1 could not have transferred the
part of the land in dispute on the basis of PA11 entry -because the rights accrued to the
petitioner no.1 -stands suspended -therefore
there is apprehension that the petitioner no.1
may further create third party rights -the said
property is required to be protected -the
respondents have also challenged the sale
deed executed by the petitioner no.1-the
interim injunction rightly granted by the
appellate court.
W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

Cases cited:

1. Esha Ekta Appartments CHS Ltd.Vs Municipal
Corporation of Mumbai & anr.; (2012) 4 SCC
689

2. Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs Church of
South India Trust Association SCI CINOD
Secretariat, Madras;(1992)3 SCC1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Samarth Saxena,
learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. This petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 01.09.2023
passed in Civil Appeal No.6 of 2020;
Balika Shukla and Others Vs. Neelam
Shukla and Others, by the Additional
District Judge, Court No.1, Lakhimpur
Kheri, by means of which the appeal has
been
allowed
and
the
order
dated
07.02.2020 passed by the trial court in
Regular Suit No.1158 of 2018 has been set
aside and the parties have been directed to
maintain status quo in regard to the land in
dispute.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the husband of the petitioner
Shri Naveen Shukla was recorded tenure
holder of the land in dispute and in
possession of the house in question. After
his
death
the
petitioner
came
into
possession and her name was recorded in
PA-11. The respondents filed Regular Suit
No.1158 of 2018 for permanent injunction
on the ground that the petitioner no.1 has
remarried with one Shri Anshu, therefore
she has lost her rights in the property of her
husband Shri Naveen Shukla and the
respondents, being sisters of Shri Naveen
Shukla, are entitled for the property in