LUCKNOW vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

4. The application is disposed of. Order on Petition

5. Rejoinder affidavit filed in the Court is taken on record.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4.

7. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgement order dated 30.05.2015, whereby the SSC Suit filed by the respondent decreed against the petitioners as well as the order dated

07.11.2022, whereby the revision preferred under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 was dismissed.

8. The facts in brief are that the respondents claiming to be the owner of the property, instituted a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment vide SSC 2 A227 No. 2304 of 2023 Suit No.23 of 1984. The plaint of the said suit is on record as Annexure No.11 to the petition. In the said suit, besides claiming ownership of the property in question, in para 5 it was stated that the respondent was a tenant at the monthly rent of Rs.0.50/- and despite on a demand, the same were not being paid, as such, the suit in question was instituted. The petitioners gave a reply and denied the title of the respondent as well as claimed that they were never the tenant of the premises in question and in fact, they claimed their rights by virtue of possession over the property prior to enforcement of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. The JSC Court based upon the pleadings framed two points of determination. The first point being whether the defendant to the suit was a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.0.50/-. The second point of determination was whether the defendant to the suit had defaulted in payment of rent despite demand and had caused material alteration over the shop in question. While deciding issue No.1, the JSC Court considered the material on record including the revenue entries and formed a view that the plaintiff to the suit was the owner of the property by virtue of the documents produced and analyzed by the court concerned. The court concerned also noticed that the defendant to the suit had also instituted some proceedings for declaration of the rights. However, no orders were passed in favour of the said defendant. Thus, considering the material on record, the view was formed that the plaintiff to the suit was the owner of the premises and simply on the said basis, a view was formed that the defendant to the suit was the tenant. While deciding issue No.2, it was recorded that none of the witnesses for the defendant could establish that the rent was paid and thus, based upon the said, the suit in question was decreed. The revisional court also dismissed the revision on the same ground.

9. While arguing the present petition, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that for instituting the suit before the court of Judge Small Cause, it was incumbent that the relationship of the land lord and tenant be established so as to make the suit amenable to the jurisdiction of the JSC Court. It is argued that even if the land lord is not the owner of the premises, still proceedings can be instituted in view of the definition of tenant contained in Section 3(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.

10. He argues that in the entire suit, no evidence was led to establish that 3 A227 No. 2304 of 2023 the petitioners were liable to pay the rent at any point of time and accept for assertions in para 5 of the plaint, no evidence was led to that effect. He further argues that in a normal suit for eviction of a trespasser, the JSC Court has no jurisdiction as in terms of the amendments carried out in the State of U.P. Only in the cases relating to lessee and lessor, the jurisdiction is vested with the JSC Court. He thus, argues that both the orders are without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, draws my attention to the evidence considered by the JSC Court and recorded while determining the point of determination No.1, wherein all the documents pertaining to the entry of the plaintiff's name to the suit in the revenue records and also the suit filed by the land lord were considered.

12. He could not demonstrate any evidence, which was considered by the JSC Court, which would establish that the defendant was the tenant as defined under Section 3(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 so as to make the suit amenable to the jurisdiction of the JSC Court.

13. In the absence of there being any material to establish the relationship of the land lord and the tenant in terms of the definition of tenant as defined under the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 clearly the JSC Court did not have the jurisdiction. On the same analogy, the judgement of the revisional court also cannot be sustained. Both the judgements are quashed.

14. The petition is allowed.

15. The parties would be at liberty to adjudicate their rights in accordance with law.

16. The observations made in the present judgement will not come in the way of the parties taking steps for establishing their rights, if so advised, in accordance with law. September 11, 2025 Ashutosh (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

4. The application is disposed of. Order on Petition

5. Rejoinder affidavit filed in the Court is taken on record.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4.

7. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgement order dated 30.05.2015, whereby the SSC Suit filed by the respondent decreed against the petitioners as well as the order dated

07.11.2022, whereby the revision preferred under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 was dismissed.

8. The facts in brief are that the respondents claiming to be the owner of the property, instituted a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment vide SSC 2 A227 No. 2304 of 2023 Suit No.23 of 1984. The plaint of the said suit is on record as Annexure No.11 to the petition. In the said suit, besides claiming ownership of the property in question, in para 5 it was stated that the respondent was a tenant at the monthly rent of Rs.0.50/- and despite on a demand, the same were not being paid, as such, the suit in question was instituted. The petitioners gave a reply and denied the title of the respondent as well as claimed that they were never the tenant of the premises in question and in fact, they claimed their rights by virtue of possession over the property prior to enforcement of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. The JSC Court based upon the pleadings framed two points of determination. The first point being whether the defendant to the suit was a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.0.50/-. The second point of determination was whether the defendant to the suit had defaulted in payment of rent despite demand and had caused material alteration over the shop in question. While deciding issue No.1, the JSC Court considered the material on record including the revenue entries and formed a view that the plaintiff to the suit was the owner of the property by virtue of the documents produced and analyzed by the court concerned. The court concerned also noticed that the defendant to the suit had also instituted some proceedings for declaration of the rights. However, no orders were passed in favour of the said defendant. Thus, considering the material on record, the view was formed that the plaintiff to the suit was the owner of the premises and simply on the said basis, a view was formed that the defendant to the suit was the tenant. While deciding issue No.2, it was recorded that none of the witnesses for the defendant could establish that the rent was paid and thus, based upon the said, the suit in question was decreed. The revisional court also dismissed the revision on the same ground.

9. While arguing the present petition, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that for instituting the suit before the court of Judge Small Cause, it was incumbent that the relationship of the land lord and tenant be established so as to make the suit amenable to the jurisdiction of the JSC Court. It is argued that even if the land lord is not the owner of the premises, still proceedings can be instituted in view of the definition of tenant contained in Section 3(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.

10. He argues that in the entire suit, no evidence was led to establish that 3 A227 No. 2304 of 2023 the petitioners were liable to pay the rent at any point of time and accept for assertions in para 5 of the plaint, no evidence was led to that effect. He further argues that in a normal suit for eviction of a trespasser, the JSC Court has no jurisdiction as in terms of the amendments carried out in the State of U.P. Only in the cases relating to lessee and lessor, the jurisdiction is vested with the JSC Court. He thus, argues that both the orders are without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, draws my attention to the evidence considered by the JSC Court and recorded while determining the point of determination No.1, wherein all the documents pertaining to the entry of the plaintiff's name to the suit in the revenue records and also the suit filed by the land lord were considered.

12. He could not demonstrate any evidence, which was considered by the JSC Court, which would establish that the defendant was the tenant as defined under Section 3(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 so as to make the suit amenable to the jurisdiction of the JSC Court.

13. In the absence of there being any material to establish the relationship of the land lord and the tenant in terms of the definition of tenant as defined under the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 clearly the JSC Court did not have the jurisdiction. On the same analogy, the judgement of the revisional court also cannot be sustained. Both the judgements are quashed.

14. The petition is allowed.

15. The parties would be at liberty to adjudicate their rights in accordance with law.

16. The observations made in the present judgement will not come in the way of the parties taking steps for establishing their rights, if so advised, in accordance with law. September 11, 2025 Ashutosh (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench