# Sri Raman Arora Revisionist v. Susheel Kumar (Deceased) & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 373
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-23
- **Case number:** S.C.C. Revision No. 95 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-raman-arora-revisionist-v-susheel-kumar-deceased-ors-52859
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Tenancy Law - Maintainability of
eviction suits in cases of unwritten
agreement - Uttar Pradesh Regulation of
Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 - U.P.
Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972 - Central
Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887.

From a bare reading of Section 1(4), it is
clear that legislature intended to give
retrospective effect to the Act No. 16 of
2021 with effect from the issuance of
ordinance i.e. 11.01.2021 and, therefore,
there is no scope of doubt left to hold that
the Act would be taken to have come into
force with effect from 11.01.2021. (Para 7)

B. Maintainability of eviction suits in cases
of unwritten agreement - No provision
which is very clear in its language can be
interpreted otherwise to either enlarge its
scope of application or to narrow it down.

The language of Section 38(2) is very
clear and it bars in quite an unequivocal
terms exercise of jurisdiction by Rent
Authority
in
cases
when
written
agreement are not there between landlord
and tenant as per format prescribed under
1st Schedule to Act No. 16 of 2021. The
legislature uses every word cautiously and with
a meaningful purpose. The Act of 2021 aims at
improving upon the existing tenancy laws with
new legislation and intends to bind parties to
enter tenancy agreements in writing to remove
uncertainties as to rent, terms and tenure of
tenancy with an object to protect interest of
both landlord and tenant. Any interference to
present rent authority to entertain cases
in cases of unwritten tenancy would
defeat the very object of the Act. (Para 8)

C. If a Bench of same strength arrives at a
different view on a point of law from
earlier view expressed by an earlier
Bench, it should in proprietary, refer the
matter to a larger Bench. (Para 9)

Thus, if a bench of same strength comes to
conclude that earlier co-ordinate Bench had
either ignored a particular provision of law or
has failed to properly appreciate the same, it
has only option to refer it to a larger Bench. It,
in propriety and to maintain judicial discipline
cannot take a different view altogether. (Para
10)

Thus, since, the small cause suit in the matter
of unwritten agreement between the parties u/s
15 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act
have been made applicable by the U.P. Civil
Laws
(Amendment)
Act,
1972
with
the
Presidential assent, the suit is held to be
maintainable on this count and in view of the
law laid down by this Court in the case of Amit
Gupta (infra). (Para 11)

Revision application dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

1 All. Sri Raman Arora Vs. Susheel Kumar (Deceased) & Ors.
373
(2025) 1 ILRA 373
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

S.C.C. Revision No. 95 of 2023

Sri Raman Arora ...Revisionist
Versus
Susheel Kumar (Deceased) & Ors.
 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Mahender, Mohan Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Vijay Prakash Mishra

A. Tenancy Law - Maintainability of
eviction suits in cases of unwritten
agreement - Uttar Pradesh Regulation of
Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 - U.P.
Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972 - Central
Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887.

From a bare reading of Section 1(4), it is
clear that legislature intended to give
retrospective effect to the Act No. 16 of
2021 with effect from the issuance of
ordinance i.e. 11.01.2021 and, therefore,
there is no scope of doubt left to hold that
the Act would be taken to have come into
force with effect from 11.01.2021. (Para 7)

B. Maintainability of eviction suits in cases
of unwritten agreement - No provision
which is very clear in its language can be
interpreted otherwise to either enlarge its
scope of application or to narrow it down.

The language of Section 38(2) is very
clear and it bars in quite an unequivocal
terms exercise of jurisdiction by Rent
Authority
in
cases
when
written
agreement are not there between landlord
and tenant as per format prescribed under
1st Schedule to Act No. 16 of 2021. The
legislature uses every word cautiously and with
a meaningful purpose. The Act of 2021 aims at
improving upon the existing tenancy laws with
new legislation and intends to bind parties to
enter tenancy agreements in writing to remove
uncertainties as to rent, terms and tenure of
tenancy with an object to protect interest of
both landlord and tenant. Any interference to
present rent authority to entertain cases
in cases of unwritten tenancy would
defeat the very object of the Act. (Para 8)

C. If a Bench of same strength arrives at a
different view on a point of law from
earlier view expressed by an earlier
Bench, it should in proprietary, refer the
matter to a larger Bench. (Para 9)

Thus, if a bench of same strength comes to
conclude that earlier co-ordinate Bench had
either ignored a particular provision of law or
has failed to properly appreciate the same, it
has only option to refer it to a larger Bench. It,
in propriety and to maintain judicial discipline
cannot take a different view altogether. (Para
10)

Thus, since, the small cause suit in the matter
of unwritten agreement between the parties u/s
15 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act
have been made applicable by the U.P. Civil
Laws
(Amendment)
Act,
1972
with
the
Presidential assent, the suit is held to be
maintainable on this count and in view of the
law laid down by this Court in the case of Amit
Gupta (infra). (Para 11)

Revision application dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Amit Gupta Vs Gulab Chandra Kanodia and
Shri Mewak Ram, MANU/UP/1559/2023 SCC
Revision No. 158 of 2022 (Para 4)

2. Keshav Dev Khemka Samaj Sewa Sadam
Samiti Vs Kuldeep Chand Malik, S.C.C. Revision
Defective No. 48 of 2022 decided on 15.05.2023
(Para 4)

3. Mary Pushpam Vs Telvi Curusumary & ors.,
(2024) 3 SCC 224 (Para 9)

Precedent distinguished:
374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Amarjeet Singh, Writ A No. 3023 of 2024

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

1. Heard Shri Mohan Srivastava,
learned Advocate appearing for revision
applicant and Shri Vijay Prakash Mishra,
learned Advocate appearing for tenant
respondent.

2.
By
means
of
this
revision
application,
revision
applicant
has
questioned the order passed by Additional
District Judge, Court No. 15, Bulandshahar
dated 15.07.2023 whereby it has upheld the
maintainability of eviction suit instituted by
the landlord before the Judge Small Causes
taking a legal view of the enforcement of
the Act, namely, Act No. 16 of 2021,
namely the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of
Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 with
effect from the date of its publication in the
gazette on 24.08.2021. Questioning the
maintainability of suit before the Judge
Small Causes Court, the tenant had taken
the objection that the ordinance that had
later on got converted into an enactment
was enforced on 11.01.2021 and, therefore,
the Act would be taken to have commenced
with effect from 11.01.2021 in view of subsection 4 of Section-1 of the U.P.
Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy
Act, 2021.

3. Learned Advocate appearing for
tenant/ revision applicant has argued that
statute enacted by competent legislature
would prevail upon ordinance, government
order and executive notifications including
notification of the act in Gazette and,
therefore, once the Act itself provided for
its enforcement vide Section 1 (4), with
effect from 11.01.2021, the court took an
erroneous view in law that its enforcement
would be taken to be with effect from date
of its publication in the official gazette.

4. Per contra, it is argued by learned
Advocate
appearing
for
landlord
respondent that even if the Act is taken to
have come into force with effect from
11.01.2021, in view of the fact that there
was no written agreement of lease in
respect of demised premises between the
parties, the suit before the Judge Small
Causes under the Provincial Small Causes
Act, 1887 was absolutely maintainable in
view of the judgment of this Court in the
matter of Amit Gupta v. Gulab Chandra
Kanodia and Shri Mewak Ram and
Keshav Dev Khemka Samaj Sewa Sadam
Samiti
v.
Kuldeep
Chand
Malik
MANU/UP/1559/2023 SCC Revision No.
158 of 2022 and SCC Revision Defective
No. 48 of 2022 decided on 15.05.2023,
which still holds the field. He argues that
the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972
having
the
Presidential
assent,
the
maintainability of suit in respect of
unwritten tenancy agreements not covered
by the first schedule of the Act No. 16 of
2021 before the Judge Small Causes,
cannot be questioned only on the premise
that tenancy agreements in writing or
information thereof as required under
various sub-Sections of Section 4 to the
rent authority is not sine qua non for
maintaining an application under Section
21 (2) of the new Act. He has taken the
Court to the relevant provisions as
contained under Section 38 (2) of the new
Act that specifically confers jurisdiction on
the rent authority to try tenancy disputes
only in the matter of tenancy agreement
that are submitted to it as per prescribed
format specified in first Schedule. Section
38 (2) of the new Act is reproduced
hereunder:
1 All. Sri Raman Arora Vs. Susheel Kumar (Deceased) & Ors.
375

"(2) The jurisdiction of the Rent
Authority shall be limited to tenancy
agreement submitted to it as specified in
the First Schedule and shall not extend to
the question of title or ownership of
premises."

5. Learned Advocate appearing for
respondent submits that reading down the
provisions as contained under various subsections of Section 4 along with subsection 2 of Section 38, would definitely
lead a prudent mind to conclude that
written agreement as contemplated under
the new Act is necessary for invoking the
provisions under Section 21 (2) of the Act
No. 16 of 2021. He further submits that the
new Act being the State Act having only
the Governor's assent, will not be having
overriding effect upon the U.P. Civil Laws
Amendment Act, 1972 which amends the
Central Provincial Small Causes Courts
Act, 1887 in its application to the State of
Uttar Pradesh to maintain eviction suits in
respect of leases of urban buildings, with
the Presidential assent. He argues that in
the case of Amarjeet Singh (Writ A No.
3023 of 2024) which is subsequent in point
of time to Amit Gupta (supra), has not
dealt with this aspect of matter at all and,
hence, will not be a binding judicial
precedent. Besides this he also argues that
on the principle of propriety, if a
Coordinate Bench was taking a different
view from what had already been taken by
another Coordinate Bench in its judgment
which was earlier in point of time and
which had not been overruled, then
subsequent Coordinate Bench ought to
have referred the matter to a Larger Bench.
He submits that there being no written
agreement between the parties as to
tenancy/ lease qua the premises in question,
the small causes suit was absolutely
maintainable in view of the provisions as
contained under the U.P. Civil Laws
Amendment
Act,
1972
having
the
Presidential assent even in the event the
new Act is taken to have been brought into
force with effect from 11.01.2021.

6. Having heard learned counsel
appearing for respective parties and having
perused the order passed by Judge Small
Causes/ Additional District Judge, Court
No. 15, Bulandshahar dated 15.07.2023 and
the judgment in the case of Amit Gupta
(supra) and the judgment in the case of
Amarjeet Singh (supra) I find force in the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
appearing for respondent even though I do
not find myself in agreement with the view
taken by the Judge Small Causes that the
new Act being Act No. 16 of 2021 should
be taken to have been brought into force
only with effect from 24.08.2021. The
Judge Small Causes though has referred to
the ordinance earlier issued by the
Governor on 11.01.2021 which later on got
translated into a legislative enactment but
has failed to appreciate Sub-Section 4 of
Section 1 of the Act No. 16 of 2021. SubSection 4 of Section 1 runs as under:

"1.(4) It shall be deemed to have
come into force with effect from January
11, 2021."

7. From a bare reading of the aforesaid
provision it is clear that legislature intended
to give retrospective effect to the Act No.
16 of 2021 with effect from the issuance of
ordinance i.e. 11.01.2021 and, therefore,
there is no scope of doubt left to hold that
the Act would be taken to have come into
force with effect from 11.01.2021.

8. The question now arises as to the
legal position qua maintainability of
eviction suits in cases of unwritten
376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
agreement. While in Amit Gupta's case
(supra) such suits have been held to be
maintainable,
under
Provincial
Small
Causes Courts Act, 1887 despite Act No.
16 of 2021 coming into existence but
recently a Co-ordinate Bench in the matter
of Amarjeet Singh (supra) has taken a
different
view
holding
that
written
agreement is not sine qua non to maintain a
case for eviction at the instance of landlord
under Section 21 (1) of the Act No. 16 of
2021. The principle evolved is that new Act
provides a forum to cover all rent cases
when tenancy is admitted to the parties.
With great respect to his Lordship, I find
there to be hardly any discussion as to the
scope of Section 28 (2) of the Act No. 16 of
2021 in as much as the status of small
causes courts' jurisdiction under U.P. Civil
Law Amendment Act, 1972 which has the
Presidential
assent.
The
language
of
Section 38 (2) is very clear and it bars in
quite an unequivocal terms exercise of
jurisdiction by Rent Authority in cases
when written agreement are not there
between landlord and tenant as per format
prescribed under Ist Schedule to Act No. 16
of 2021. No provision which is very clear
in its language can be interpreted otherwise
to either enlarge its scope of application or
to narrow it down. The legislature uses
every
word
cautiously
and
with
a
meaningful purpose. The Act of 2021 aims
at improving upon the existing tenancy
laws with new legislation and intends to
bind parties to enter tenancy agreements in
writing to remove uncertainties as to rent,
terms and tenure of tenancy with an object
to protect interest of both landlord and
tenant. Any interference to present rent
authority to entertain cases in cases of
unwritten tenancy would defeat the very
object of the Act. Much detailed analysis
has been done in Amit Gupta's Case but all
that has remained virtually unnoticed in
subsequent judgment of a Co-ordinate
Bench in Amarjet Singh's case. The Court
has not discussed and analysed the aspect
whether that such an interpretation as was
being made in the case (Amarjeet Singh's
case) would give an overriding effect to
State Act with only Governor's assent upon
earlier enactment having presidential assent
and if yes, whether such an interpretation
would be justified.

9. Now, question is about binding
judicial precedent qua this subsequent
judgment. The Courts have repeatedly held
that if a Bench of same strength arrives at a
different view on a point of law from
earlier view expressed by an earlier Bench,
it should in proprietary, refer the matter to a
larger Bench. Recently in the case of Mary
Pushpam v. Telvi Curusumary and others
(2024) 3 Supreme Court Cases 224 vide
paragraphs 20 and 21 the Court has held
thus:

"20.
The
legal
position
on
coordinate Benches has further been
elaborated by this Court in State of Punjab
v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd:

339. Judicial discipline envisages
that a coordinate Bench follow the decision
of an earlier coordinate Bench. If a
coordinate Bench does not agree with the
principles of law enunciated by another
Bench, the matter may be referred to a
larger Bench.

340.
In
Halsbury's
Law
of
England (4th Edn) Vol. 26 at pp 297-98
para 578, it is stated

' A decision is given per incuriam
when the court has acted in ignorance of a
previous decision of its own or of a court of
coordinate jurisdiction which covered the
case before, it in which case it must decide
which
case
to
follow.'
1 All. Ankit Agrawal Vs. Smt. Monika Agrawal
377

21. We have already discussed
about the importance of ensuring judicial
discipline and the same has also been
upheld by various judgment of this Court in
Central
Board
of
Dawoodi
Bohra
Community v. State of Maharashtra, this
court has summed up the legal position of
rules of judicial discipline as follows:

12. ... (1) The law laid down by
this Court in a decision delivered by a
Bench of larger strength is binding on any
subsequent Bench of lesser or coequal
strength.

(2) A Bench of lesser quorum
cannot disagree or dissent from the view of
the law taken by a Bench of larger quorum.
In case of doubt all that the bench of lesseer
quorum can do is to invite the attention of the
Chief Justice and request for the matter being
placed for hearing before a Bench of larger
quorum than the Bench whose decision has
come up for consideration. It will be open
only for a Bench of coequal strength to
express an opinion doubting the correctness
of the view taken by the earlier Bench of
coequal strength, whereupon the matter may
be placed for hearing before a Bench
consisting of a quorum larger than the one
which pronounced the decision laying down
the law the correctness of which is doubted"

(Emphasis added)

10. Thus, if a bench of same strength
comes to conclude that earlier co-ordinate
Bench had either ignored a particular
provision of law or has failed to properly
appreciate the same, it has only option to
refer it to a larger Bench. It, in propriety
and to maintain judicial discipline can not
take a different view altogether.

11. Thus, since, the small cause suit in
the matter of unwritten agreement between
the parties under Section 15 of the
Provincial Small Causes Courts Act have
been made applicable by the U.P.Civil
Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972 with the
Presidential assent, I hold the suit to be
maintainable on this count in view of the
law laid down also by this Court also in the
case of Amit Gupta (supra).

12. Thus, in view of the above, I do
not subscribe to the view taken by the
Judge Small Causes regarding applicability
of Act No. 16 of 2021 only with effect
from 24.08.2021, I still hold the small
causes suit filed by the landlord to be
maintainable before the Judge Small
Causes.

13.
Hence,
I
decline
to
grant
interference with the suit proceedings.

14.The revision application on this
count, therefore, stands dismissed.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 377
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 7309 of 2024

Ankit Agrawal ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Monika Agrawal ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Paritosh Joshi, Raghav Dev Garg, Sr.
Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent:
Amrit Shanker Dubey

Civil Law-The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955Section 13B - The Constitution of India,
1950-Article 227--- Petitioner residing at
United St.s of America, therefore, he could not