Supreme Court · 2025

The first being whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed in between the parties, the second being with regard to allegation of default being established or not. While deciding the issue no. 1, the trial Court considered the plaint filed by the revisionist in Suit No. 334 of 1992, wherein he had admitted that he was the tenant of the premises and there was an apprehension of his being evicted except in accordance with law, in which, an injunction was also granted. Considering the said evidence as well as holding that there was admission that the revisionist was the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.150/- of which Smt. Geeta Devi and Mata Prasad were the landlord. The Court also considered the report of the Commissioner in the light of the allegations leveled by the revisionist that the property is under the occupation of outside the lease hold property of Smt. Geeta Devi. The Court also considered the written statement filed by the revisionist and the map annexed, to record a finding of fact that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed in between the parties. While determined the issue no. 2, the Court held that after the service of notice determining the tenancy, the amount of rent was not deposited. The other issues were also decided in the light of the decision on issue no. 1, 2 and 3 and ultimately an order of eviction has been passed which is under challenge.

4. The contention of the counsel for the revisionist is that after filing the suit, the revisionist came to know that the property in question was a Nazul property and thus, there was a dispute with regard to the ownership of the property and it was incumbent upon the JSCC to have referred the matter to the Civil Court in the light of mandate of Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. He further argues that there was a dispute with regard to the ownership of the property in question which came to the knowledge of the revisionist subsequent to the filing of the suit and thus, the JSCC Court did not have the jurisdiction to decide the issue.

5. The counsel for the respondent on the other hand supports the judgment by arguing that in terms of the definition of landlord as defined in U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, what is essential to be considered is that there should be a relationship of landlord and tenant in terms of the definition prescribed under the Act and the ownership, is immaterial. He further argues that in any case, no suit for declaration or claiming ownership was ever instituted by the revisionist in respect of the property in question, thus reliance on Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act was also wholly unjustified. He thus argues that the suit is liable to be decreed and has been rightly decreed by the Small Causes Court as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed.

6. The present case demonstrates the manner in which, the tenant, who is not even running the shop in question on account of certain proceedings has delayed the proceedings and has taken frivolous pleas even denying the title of the tenant despite there being specific admission in the suit.

7. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, the submission of the counsel for the revisionist that he subsequently deciphered that it was a Nazul property merits rejection in view of the definition of landlord as described under Section 3(j) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, which is as under:- "(j) "landlord", in relation to a building, means n, person D whom its rent is or if' the building were let, would be, payable and includes, except in clause (o), the agent or attorney, of such person."

8. In view of the admission of the revisionist in the said suit, clearly the relationship of landlord and tenant existed in between the parties. The other submission of the counsel for the revisionist is on the foundation of Section 23 further merits rejection as at no point of time any dispute to the title or adverse title was ever claimed by the revisionist by either filing a suit or even in the additional pleas in the present suit. Thus, the contention of the counsel for the revisionist that the matter ought to have delegated to a Civil Court also merits rejection.

9. Finding the order to be passed after considering the evidences, no good ground for interference in exercise of revisional power under Section 25 of the JSCC Act are made out. The revision is dismissed with the cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand). In case the revisionist vacates the premises within a period of one month, the cost of Rs.50,000/- shall stands waived. In case, the revisionist does not vacate the premises in question within one month, the District Magistrate, Raebareli shall recover the cost as arrears of land revenue and shall pay the same to the landlord. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Arun ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

The first being whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed in between the parties, the second being with regard to allegation of default being established or not. While deciding the issue no. 1, the trial Court considered the plaint filed by the revisionist in Suit No. 334 of 1992, wherein he had admitted that he was the tenant of the premises and there was an apprehension of his being evicted except in accordance with law, in which, an injunction was also granted. Considering the said evidence as well as holding that there was admission that the revisionist was the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.150/- of which Smt. Geeta Devi and Mata Prasad were the landlord. The Court also considered the report of the Commissioner in the light of the allegations leveled by the revisionist that the property is under the occupation of outside the lease hold property of Smt. Geeta Devi. The Court also considered the written statement filed by the revisionist and the map annexed, to record a finding of fact that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed in between the parties. While determined the issue no. 2, the Court held that after the service of notice determining the tenancy, the amount of rent was not deposited. The other issues were also decided in the light of the decision on issue no. 1, 2 and 3 and ultimately an order of eviction has been passed which is under challenge.

4. The contention of the counsel for the revisionist is that after filing the suit, the revisionist came to know that the property in question was a Nazul property and thus, there was a dispute with regard to the ownership of the property and it was incumbent upon the JSCC to have referred the matter to the Civil Court in the light of mandate of Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. He further argues that there was a dispute with regard to the ownership of the property in question which came to the knowledge of the revisionist subsequent to the filing of the suit and thus, the JSCC Court did not have the jurisdiction to decide the issue.

5. The counsel for the respondent on the other hand supports the judgment by arguing that in terms of the definition of landlord as defined in U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, what is essential to be considered is that there should be a relationship of landlord and tenant in terms of the definition prescribed under the Act and the ownership, is immaterial. He further argues that in any case, no suit for declaration or claiming ownership was ever instituted by the revisionist in respect of the property in question, thus reliance on Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act was also wholly unjustified. He thus argues that the suit is liable to be decreed and has been rightly decreed by the Small Causes Court as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed.

6. The present case demonstrates the manner in which, the tenant, who is not even running the shop in question on account of certain proceedings has delayed the proceedings and has taken frivolous pleas even denying the title of the tenant despite there being specific admission in the suit.

7. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, the submission of the counsel for the revisionist that he subsequently deciphered that it was a Nazul property merits rejection in view of the definition of landlord as described under Section 3(j) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, which is as under:- "(j) "landlord", in relation to a building, means n, person D whom its rent is or if' the building were let, would be, payable and includes, except in clause (o), the agent or attorney, of such person."

8. In view of the admission of the revisionist in the said suit, clearly the relationship of landlord and tenant existed in between the parties. The other submission of the counsel for the revisionist is on the foundation of Section 23 further merits rejection as at no point of time any dispute to the title or adverse title was ever claimed by the revisionist by either filing a suit or even in the additional pleas in the present suit. Thus, the contention of the counsel for the revisionist that the matter ought to have delegated to a Civil Court also merits rejection.

9. Finding the order to be passed after considering the evidences, no good ground for interference in exercise of revisional power under Section 25 of the JSCC Act are made out. The revision is dismissed with the cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand). In case the revisionist vacates the premises within a period of one month, the cost of Rs.50,000/- shall stands waived. In case, the revisionist does not vacate the premises in question within one month, the District Magistrate, Raebareli shall recover the cost as arrears of land revenue and shall pay the same to the landlord. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Arun ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench