Allahabad High Court
Raju Pathak vs Ajai Kumar Jai on 9 May, 2024
Author: Neeraj Tiwari
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:83524
Court No. - 50
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5482 of 2024
Petitioner :- Raju Pathak
Respondent :- Ajai Kumar Jai
Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for petitioner.
2. Present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
"A. Set aside the impugned order dated 16.03.2024 passed by Judge Small Causes Court, Prayagraj in S.C.C. Suit No. 13 of 2022 (Ajay Kumar Jain vs. Raju Pathak).
B. To restrain the respondent not to eject the petitioner from the shop measuring area 3*12 fit situated at Chowk, Tahsil and Pargana Sadar, District Allahabad in light of judgment dated 2.9.1998 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4567 of 1998 (Ajay Kumar Jain vs. Ram Chandra Pathak) during pendency of the present petition before this Hon'ble Court."
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that earlier plaintiff-respondent has filed S.C.C. Suit No. 13 of 2022 on 03.03.2022 whereas by that time, The Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (in short, 'New Act') came into force w.e.f. 21.01.2021, therefore, no tenancy dispute is maintainable except under the provisions of New Act. He next submitted that petitioner has filed application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, which was rejected vide order dated 16.03.2024 relying upon the judgment of this Court passed in Amit Gupta vs. Gulab Chandra Kanodia; 2023(6)ADJ 191. He further submitted that in light of judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Neena Jain & Ors. vs. State of U.P. (Civil Appeal Nos. 1082-1083/2017), the only recourse open to the petitioner to file application for arrears of rent as well as eviction under the provisions of New Act, therefore, order impugned is bad and liable to be set aside.
4. I have considered the submissions advanced by counsel for petitioner and perused the records as well as aforementioned judgments.
5. Issue before the Court is as to whether even after enforcement of New Act, SCC Suit is maintainable under the provisions of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1887') as well as Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ((hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1882') or not. This question was not before the Apex Court in the matter of Neena Jain (Supra), in fact the Apex Court is only saying that even in case of existing tenancy, for claim of arrears, application may be filed under the provisions of New Act.
6. I have also perused the provisions of New Act and there is no dispute on the point that in case of fulfilling the terms & conditions mentioned in Section 4 of New Act for existing tenancy, application may be filed for arrears of rent or for other reasons as mentioned in Section 4 of New Act, but the issue before this Court is in case of absence of information of tenancy Act provided in Section 4 of New Act, what would be the position of maintainability of SCC Suit and this issue was very well dealt in detail by this Court in the judgment of Amit Gupta (Supra) in which Court has categorically held that as Act, 1887, Act, 1882, Central Act or having assent of President, therefore, if a landlord is not fulfilling the terms & conditions of Section 4 of New Act, he can file SCC Suit under the provisions of Act, 1887 as well as Act, 1882. Therefore, the judgment in Neena Jain (Supra) is of no use for the petitioner in the present case. Further, learned Judge Small Causes Court has rightly relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in Amit Gupta (Supra) while rejecting the application of petitioner filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
6. Under such facts and circumstances, I find no illegality in the impugned order.
7. Writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly dismissed.
8. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 9.5.2024
Sartaj
