M/S Sapna Sweet House Thru. Its Proprietor Namely Kunj v. Sati Ram Yadav And 2 Others

Petitioner :- M/S Sapna Sweet House Thru. Its Proprietor Namely Kunj Behari Prasad Respondent :- Sati Ram Yadav And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Gupta, Smt. Ruchi Gupta Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.08.2024 whereby an order has been passed under Section 21 of U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 with direction to vacate the premises within a period of 30 days.

The petitioner claims that he was a tenant by virtue of an agreement executed in between the parties on 01.09.2014 - the said agreement is on record as Annexure - 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in terms of the rent agreement, the premises was given on rent for a period of five years and there was a prescription in Clause 32 that the jurisdiction in between the parties would be at Delhi. He argues that when an application was filed under Section 21(1) of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act, 2021'), an objection was filed that in view of the stipulation contained in the agreement, the jurisdiction would be at Delhi. The rent authority instead of deciding the preliminary objection decided the entire case and without considering the fact that the jurisdiction would not lie with the rent authorities under the Tenancy Act, 2021 proceeded to pass the impugned order. It also bears from record that subsequently, an application was moved under Section 34 of the Tenancy Act, 2021 for recalling the said order, which has been rejected on the ground that the said provision only prescribes and confers the power of rectification of errors and not of recall.

Considering the submissions made at the Bar, the first submission that in terms of the agreement dated 01.09.2014, the jurisdiction was at Delhi, is rejected for two reasons: firstly, that the agreement is an unregistered agreement and thus, could not have been read into evidence in view of the bar created by Section 49 of the Registration Act; and secondly, even otherwise, it is well settled that the parties cannot decide the jurisdiction based upon consent. Admittedly, the property is situated at Lucknow and thus, the Courts at Delhi could not have had jurisdiction even with consent of the parties.

As regards the other submission that a notice was served under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, terminating the tenancy and thus, the proceedings lay before the JSC Court by filing a suit for ejectment, the said also merits rejection inasmuch as although the notice under Section 106 was served, the Tenancy Act, 2021 confers the power even in respect of the tenancy which was created prior in point of time, thus, two modes were prescribed and were available to the landlord. The landlord has taken recourse to one of the modes prescribed.

On the merits also, there is no material to form a view that the order impugned of eviction could not have been passed, more so, when the tenancy term even as per the said agreement has come to an end.

In view thereof, no interference is warranted. Present petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 26.3.2025 nishant NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench