The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that disputes governed by the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Rent Authority, ousting the jurisdiction of civil courts. This judgment underscores the statutory bar under Section 38(1) of the Act and mandates that landlord-tenant disputes, where the relationship is admitted, must be adjudicated by the specialised forum created under the Act.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondents, landlords, filed a suit before the District Judge, Hathras, seeking arrears of rent from the revisionists, tenants, for the period from 01.12.1999 to 31.05.2025 at an enhanced rate under Section 9 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (hereinafter 'the Act, 2021'). The plaint acknowledged that the premises fell within the ambit of Section 1(3) of the Act and that a tenancy agreement was required under Section 4 of the Act. Despite requests, the tenants failed to cooperate in executing the agreement.
Key Facts
- The parties admitted a landlord-tenant relationship regarding the premises in question
- The premises fell under Section 1(3) of the Act, 2021, and were not excluded from its operation
- The landlords invoked Sections 4 and 9 of the Act in their plaint, claiming enhanced rent arrears
- The tenants alleged non-cooperation in executing the tenancy agreement as required under Section 4
- The landlords filed the suit in the Small Causes Court, Hathras, seeking relief under the Act
Procedural History
- SCC Case No. 03 of 2025: Suit filed by landlords (Shivsevak Sharma and Others) before the District Judge, Hathras
- Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Filed by tenants seeking rejection of the plaint on grounds of statutory bar under Section 38(1) of the Act, 2021
- 19.03.2026: District Judge rejected the application, leading to the present revision
- SCC Revision No. 52 of 2026: Filed before the Allahabad High Court challenging the order dated 19.03.2026
Relief Sought
The tenants sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending that the suit was barred by law due to the express exclusion of civil court jurisdiction under Section 38(1) of the Act, 2021.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a civil court, including a Small Causes Court, has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for rent arrears where the dispute is governed by the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, which expressly bars civil court jurisdiction under Section 38(1).
Arguments Presented
For the Revisionists (Tenants)
- The plaint itself acknowledged the applicability of the Act, 2021 to the premises, invoking Sections 4 and 9 of the Act
- The landlord-tenant relationship was admitted, and the premises fell under Section 1(3) of the Act, attracting the statutory bar under Section 38(1)
- Reliance was placed on Akhilesh Kumar vs. Sanjay Sahgal, wherein the High Court held that the Act, 2021, constitutes a complete code governing landlord-tenant disputes, excluding civil court jurisdiction
- The absence of a written tenancy agreement was immaterial, as the Act operates on the substance of the relationship
For the Respondents (Landlords)
- While the applicability of the Act, 2021 was not disputed, the respondents contended that they would pursue remedies under the Act
- No substantive arguments were advanced to counter the jurisdictional bar under Section 38(1)
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasised the settled legal position that an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC must be decided based on the averments in the plaint alone. The test is whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or reveals that the suit is barred by law. The Court observed:
"It is well settled that where a statute expressly excludes the jurisdiction of the civil court, such bar goes to the root of the matter and can be examined at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC itself. The jurisdictional facts determining the competence of the Court must be gathered from the averments contained in the plaint alone, and no amount of clever drafting can confer jurisdiction upon a court otherwise barred by statute."
The Court noted that the plaint itself contained categorical averments acknowledging the applicability of the Act, 2021, and invoked Sections 4 and 9 of the Act. The landlord-tenant relationship was admitted, and the premises fell within the ambit of Section 1(3) of the Act. The Court relied on Akhilesh Kumar vs. Sanjay Sahgal, wherein it was held that the Act, 2021, constitutes a complete code governing landlord-tenant disputes, creating a specialised adjudicatory mechanism. The absence of a written tenancy agreement was held to be immaterial, as the Act operates on the substance of the relationship.
The Court further clarified that once a dispute falls within the ambit of the Act, 2021, the jurisdiction of the civil court stands excluded by virtue of Section 38(1), and such disputes lie exclusively before the Rent Authority. The Court held that the District Judge erred in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, as the plaint itself disclosed that the suit was barred by law.
The Verdict
The Allahabad High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the order dated 19.03.2026 passed by the District Judge, Hathras. The application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was allowed, and the plaint in SCC Case No. 03 of 2025 was rejected as barred by law under Section 38(1) of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021. The respondents were left at liberty to pursue remedies under the Act, 2021, before the Rent Authority. The Court directed that if the respondents approached the Rent Authority, the proceedings should be concluded expeditiously, preferably within the period prescribed under the statute. No order as to costs was passed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statutory Bar Under Section 38(1) Is Absolute
- The judgment reaffirms that Section 38(1) of the Act, 2021, creates an absolute bar on civil court jurisdiction for disputes governed by the Act
- Practitioners must ensure that plaintiffs do not invoke provisions of the Act in their pleadings, as this will attract the jurisdictional bar
- Even if the landlord-tenant relationship is admitted, civil courts lack jurisdiction to entertain such suits
Rent Authority Is the Exclusive Forum
- The Act, 2021, establishes the Rent Authority as the exclusive forum for adjudicating landlord-tenant disputes
- Parties must approach the Rent Authority for relief under the Act, including claims for rent arrears, eviction, or execution of tenancy agreements
- The judgment clarifies that procedural deficiencies, such as the absence of a written tenancy agreement, do not defeat the substantive operation of the Act
Strategic Considerations for Practitioners
- For Tenants: If a suit is filed in a civil court despite the statutory bar, an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC should be filed at the earliest opportunity, relying on the averments in the plaint
- For Landlords: Ensure that pleadings do not inadvertently invoke provisions of the Act, 2021, as this may render the suit non-maintainable
- For Both Parties: Familiarise themselves with the procedural timelines and requirements under the Act, 2021, to avoid delays or dismissal of claims before the Rent Authority
