Manoharlal (Deceased) And 4 Others vs Jagdish Prasad Goel

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
S.C.C. REVISION No. - 51 of 2026
Manoharlal (Deceased) and 4 others
…..Revisionist(s)
Versus
Jagdish Prasad Goel
…..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Utpal Chatterji
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashish Kumar Singh
AND
S.C.C. REVISION No. - 79 of 2025
Manoharlal (Deceased) and 4 others Vs. Jagdish Prasad Goel
Counsel for the Revisionist (s) : Suresh Chandra Dwivedi, Utpal
Chaterji, Vinay Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party (s) : Ashish Kumar Singh, Avantika
Nigam.
…..
AFR
Court No. - 35
HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Heard Sri Utpal Chaterji, learned counsel for the revisionists and
Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. These two revisions, preferred under Section 25 of the Provincial
Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, arise out of SCC Suit No.3 of 2021
(Jagdish Prasad Goel v. Manohar Lal (deceased) through Legal
Representatives), pending before the Court of the Additional District &
Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court-I, Judge, Small Causes Court, Hapur.

2
SCCR No. - 51 of 2026
3. SCC Revision No. 79 of 2025 is directed against the order dated
20.05.2025, whereby the learned trial court rejected the defendants'
Application No.51C under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint. SCC. Revision No.51 of 2026,
in turn, assails the subsequent order dated 02.04.2026, whereby the
learned trial court rejected Application No.87C raising a preliminary
objection to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that, upon the
enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy
1
Act, 2021 , the Court of Small Causes ceased to possess jurisdiction to
entertain the proceedings.
4. Since both revisions arise from the same suit and involve a
common question concerning the maintainability of the proceedings in
the light of the provisions of the Act, 2021, they have been heard
together and are being decided by this common judgment.
5. The principal controversy raised in these revisions is whether a
suit instituted on 20.08.2021, after the enforcement of the Act, 2021,
could validly be entertained by the Court of Small Causes or whether, by
virtue of the statutory scheme of the said Act, the jurisdiction of that
Court stood excluded. It is in that context that the revisionists seek to
assail the impugned orders and press their objections to the
maintainability of the suit, including the application under Order VII
Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint.
6. The dispute in the present revisions pertains to two shops bearing
old Municipal Nos. 3 and 4, new Municipal Nos. 4 and 5 and present
Municipal Nos. 1-1/163/4 and 1-1/163/5, situated near Shanti Bhavan,
Railway Road, Hapur, District Hapur. The premises were originally let
out by late Narayan Das, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-
respondent, to Manohar Lal, the predecessor-in-interest of the present
revisionists. Upon the demise of Narayan Das, the respondent, Jagdish
Prasad Goel, succeeded to the ownership as well as the landlordship of
the disputed premises.
1 the Act, 2021

3
SCCR No. - 51 of 2026
7. Alleging default in payment of rent and seeking determination of
the tenancy, the respondent-landlord served upon Manohar Lal a notice
dated 15.07.2021 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882. The notice was duly replied to on 09.08.2021, disputing the
allegations levelled therein.
8. Thereafter, on 20.08.2021, the respondent instituted S.C.C. Suit
No.3 of 2021 before the Judge, Small Causes Court, Hapur, seeking
eviction of the tenant from the disputed premises together with recovery
of arrears of rent, damages and other consequential reliefs. During the
pendency of the suit, the original defendant, Manohar Lal, died on
12.10.2022, whereupon the present revisionists were brought on record
as his legal representatives.
9. Following their substitution, the defendants moved Application
No. 51C under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure
seeking rejection of the plaint. It was principally urged that, the suit
having been instituted after the enforcement of the Act, 2021, the Court
of Small Causes lacked jurisdiction to entertain it and that, in any event,
the plaint disclosed no cause of action against the substituted legal
representatives. The application was contested by the plaintiff and came
to be rejected by the trial court by order dated 20.05.2025.
10. Subsequently, on 25.02.2026, the defendants filed Application No.
87C once again questioning the maintainability of the suit. The
application was founded primarily upon the decision of this Court in
Canara Bank Branch Office and Another v. Sri Ashok Kumar @ Heera
2
Singh , wherein, according to the defendants, it had been authoritatively
held that disputes of the present nature were governed by the provisions
of the Act, 2021 and, consequently, lay beyond the jurisdiction of the
Court of Small Causes.
11. The plaintiff opposed the aforesaid application contending, inter
alia, that the question of maintainability had already been adjudicated
while deciding Application No. 51C and that the subsequent application
2 2026 (1) ARC 90

4
SCCR No. - 51 of 2026
was nothing but an attempt to reopen the same controversy solely on the
basis of a subsequent judicial pronouncement.
12. By the impugned order dated 02.04.2026, the trial court rejected
Application No. 87C, holding that the issue of maintainability already
stood concluded by its earlier order dated 20.05.2025 passed on
Application No.51C and that the decision in Canara Bank did not alter
the legal position governing the controversy. The  trial court
consequently directed the parties to proceed with the trial in accordance
with the earlier directions issued for its expeditious disposal.
13. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants have preferred S.C.C. Revision
No.79 of 2025 against the order dated 20.05.2025 and S.C.C. Revision
No.51 of 2026 against the subsequent order dated 02.04.2026.
14. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the rival submissions advanced
by learned counsel for the parties fall for consideration.
15. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionists submits that the
principal controversy involved in the present revisions is no longer res
integra in view of the decision of this Court in Akhilesh Kumar v. Sanjay
3
Sahgal . It is contended that the said decision has authoritatively
interpreted the provisions of the Act, 2021 and conclusively settled the
legal position regarding the forum competent to entertain proceedings
instituted after the enforcement of the said Act. It is, therefore, submitted
that the view taken by the trial court on the question of maintainability is
plainly inconsistent with the law so declared and, consequently, both the
impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
16. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord fairly does
not dispute the legal principles enunciated in Akhilesh Kumar. He,
however, submits that the controversy in the present case must be
examined in the light of the ratio laid down therein and the facts
obtaining herein. According to learned counsel, the correctness of the
impugned orders falls to be tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid
principles.
3 2026 (7) ADJ 20

5
SCCR No. - 51 of 2026
17. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the principal question that
arises for consideration is whether, upon the enforcement of the Act,
2021, disputes relating to eviction, recovery of rent and other ancillary
reliefs in respect of premises governed by the said Act could continue to
be entertained by the Court of Small Causes merely because the tenancy
had earlier been determined by a notice under Section 106 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or whether such disputes fall within the
exclusive adjudicatory mechanism created under the Act, 2021.  
18. The impugned order dated 02.04.2026 reveals that the trial court
rejected the defendants' objection to the maintainability of the suit
substantially on two grounds. Firstly, it held that an identical objection
had already been considered and rejected while deciding Application No.
51C by order dated 20.05.2025 and, therefore, the issue could not be
permitted to be re-agitated. Secondly, while noticing the reliance placed
by the defendants upon the decision of this Court in Canara Bank, the
trial court took the view that the said decision did not support the
defendants' contention and that the proceedings could validly continue
before the Court of Small Causes. Proceeding on the premise that the
tenancy had already been determined by a notice under Section 106 of
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 before institution of the suit, it
concluded that the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban
Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 had no application and that the jurisdiction
of the Court of Small Causes remained unaffected.
19. The reasoning adopted by the trial court thus rests on the
fundamental premise that once the contractual tenancy had been
determined under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the
subsequent dispute continued to be governed exclusively by the said
enactment, with the consequence that the coming into force of the Act,
2021 neither altered the forum competent to entertain the proceedings
nor affected the legal regime governing the dispute. The trial court
further held that, since the plaint itself asserted the inapplicability of the
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and

6
SCCR No. - 51 of 2026
Eviction) Act, 1972, there was no occasion to examine whether the
dispute was governed by the provisions of the Act, 2021.
20. The question that falls for consideration is whether the aforesaid
reasoning is consistent with the statutory scheme and legislative mandate
embodied in the Act, 2021.
21. The effect of the enforcement of the Act, 2021 on proceedings
instituted thereafter, its interaction with the provisions of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882, and the question whether disputes governed by the
Act, 2021 continue to be triable by the Court of Small Causes merely
because the tenancy had earlier been determined by a notice under
Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, have since received
authoritative consideration by this Court in Akhilesh Kumar. The
principles emerging therefrom, read in conjunction with the statutory
provisions of the Act, 2021, furnish the appropriate framework for
examining the correctness of the reasoning adopted by the trial court.
22. The Act, 2021 is a special and self-contained enactment governing
the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants in respect of premises
to which it applies. Besides creating substantive rights and liabilities, the
Act establishes a specialised adjudicatory mechanism for the
enforcement thereof. The requirement of execution and submission of a
written tenancy agreement contemplated under Section 4 is essentially
regulatory and evidentiary in character. The absence of such an
agreement, or non-submission of the particulars envisaged therein, does
not, by itself, exclude the applicability of the Act or denude the Rent
Authority of jurisdiction, particularly where the jural relationship of
landlord and tenant is admitted or is otherwise capable of being
established.
23. Section 38 (1) embodies the legislative mandate in clear and
unequivocal terms. Its effect is to exclude the jurisdiction of the civil
courts in respect of disputes which fall within the substantive and
remedial framework of the Act, except to the extent expressly provided
therein. The opening non-obstante clause, read together with the express

7
SCCR No. - 51 of 2026
bar enacted under the provision, unmistakably manifests the legislative
intent that disputes governed by the Act are to be adjudicated exclusively
by the authorities constituted thereunder. Once it is found that a dispute
is governed by the provisions of the Act, 2021, the jurisdiction of the
ordinary civil courts, including the Court of Small Causes, stands
excluded by virtue of the express bar enacted under Section 38(1).  
24. The statutory exclusion contained in Section 38(1) cannot be
rendered nugatory merely because, prior to institution of the
proceedings, the landlord had determined the tenancy by issuing a notice
under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Service of a
notice under Section 106 merely determines the contractual tenancy and
furnishes the landlord with a cause of action to seek eviction. It neither
determines the forum competent to adjudicate the ensuing dispute nor
creates, preserves or enlarges the jurisdiction of any particular court. The
forum before which such right is to be enforced is governed by the law
in force on the date the proceedings are instituted and not by the law
under which the cause of action arose.
25. The jurisdiction of a court is determined by the law in force on the
date on which the proceedings are instituted unless the statute expressly
provides otherwise. The date on which the cause of action accrued or the
tenancy stood determined is relevant only for the accrual of the right to
sue; it does not determine the forum competent to entertain the
proceedings. While determination of a tenancy under Section 106 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 furnishes the landlord with a cause of
action to seek eviction, it neither creates nor preserves the jurisdiction of
any particular forum. The question of jurisdiction must, therefore, be
answered with reference to the statutory regime governing adjudication
on the date of institution of the proceedings.  
26. This distinction assumes particular significance in the present
case. The tenancy may have stood determined by the notice dated
15.07.2021 issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882. However, the suit itself came to be instituted on 20.08.2021, by

8
SCCR No. - 51 of 2026
which date the Act, 2021 had already come into force. The determinative
date for deciding the question of jurisdiction is, therefore, the date of
institution of the proceedings and not the date on which the contractual
tenancy stood terminated. Jurisdiction is attracted by the law prevailing
on the date proceedings are instituted and cannot be preserved merely
because the cause of action had arisen under an earlier legal regime. Any
other interpretation would enable litigants to circumvent the legislative
mandate embodied in Section 38(1) simply by issuing a notice under
Section 106 prior to institution of the proceedings, thereby frustrating the
object of the Act in creating an exclusive statutory mechanism for
adjudication of landlord-tenant disputes and introducing a distinction,
founded solely on the date of determination of the tenancy rather than
the date of institution of the proceedings, which finds no support either
in the language or the scheme of the Act, 2021.
27. The legal position may, therefore, be summarised thus. Where a
landlord-tenant dispute is instituted after the enforcement of the Uttar
Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 and is
otherwise governed by the provisions of the said Act, the forum
competent to entertain such dispute must be determined with reference
to the Act, 2021. The mere fact that the tenancy had earlier been
determined by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 does not preserve the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes
or exclude the operation of Section 38(1) of the Act, 2021.  
28. The further observation of the trial court that, since the tenancy
had been determined under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882, the proceedings continued to be governed by that enactment and,
consequently, remained maintainable before the Court of Small Causes,
proceeds on a manifest misconception of the legal position. The Transfer
of Property Act regulates the substantive incidents relating to the
creation and determination of leases; it neither confers nor preserves the
jurisdiction of any particular forum. Once the Act, 2021 came into force
and the dispute fell within its substantive and remedial framework, the

9
SCCR No. - 51 of 2026
forum competent to entertain such dispute necessarily stood governed by
the later special enactment.
29. Tested on the aforesaid legal position, the reasoning adopted by
the trial court cannot be sustained. The trial court failed to notice the
distinction between the law governing the determination of a tenancy
and the law governing the forum competent to adjudicate disputes
arising therefrom. It erroneously assumed that determination of the
tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
preserved the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes notwithstanding
the coming into force of the Act, 2021 and the express jurisdictional bar
enacted by Section 38(1). The impugned order dated 02.04.2026,
therefore, suffers from a manifest error of law affecting the very
assumption of jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.
30. Turning now to the order dated 20.05.2025, it is evident that the
trial court rejected Application No.51C under Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure by repelling two distinct objections raised by
the defendants. The first related to the alleged absence of a cause of
action against the substituted legal representatives, while the second
pertained to the maintainability of the suit before the Court of Small
Causes in the light of the enforcement of the Act, 2021.
31. Insofar as the first objection is concerned, this Court finds no
infirmity in the view taken by the trial court. It is trite that while
considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is
required to confine itself to the averments contained in the plaint and the
documents relied upon by the plaintiff. The plaint, as amended after
substitution, specifically impleads the legal representatives of the
deceased defendant and seeks the reliefs originally claimed against the
estate represented by them. Upon the death of a party during the
pendency of the proceedings, his legal representatives step into his shoes
and represent his estate for the purposes of the litigation. It cannot,
therefore, be said that the plaint discloses no cause of action against the

10
SCCR No. - 51 of 2026
substituted defendants. The rejection of Application No. 51C to that
extent, therefore, warrants no interference.
32. The second objection, however, stands on an entirely different
footing. While rejecting the application, the trial court proceeded on the
premise that, since the plaint itself pleaded that the provisions of the U.P.
Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
were inapplicable and the tenancy had been determined by a notice
under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the suit
continued to remain maintainable before the Court of Small Causes
notwithstanding the enforcement of the Act, 2021.
33. The approach, however, overlooks the real issue arising for
consideration. The question was not whether the Act of 1972 applied to
the dispute, but whether, on the date of institution of the suit, the
jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes stood excluded by reason of
the statutory scheme of the Act, 2021. Likewise, the determination of the
tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was relevant
only for the accrual of the landlord's cause of action and not for
determining the forum competent to adjudicate the dispute. The trial
court thus addressed itself to considerations which were legally
irrelevant while failing to examine the jurisdictional consequences
flowing from Sections 4 and 38 of the Act, 2021.
34. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the trial court proceeded on an erroneous understanding of
the statutory scheme of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises
Tenancy Act, 2021. The premise that determination of the tenancy by a
notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, coupled
with the admitted inapplicability of the U.P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, was sufficient to
preserve the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes is legally
unsustainable. The trial court failed to appreciate that the forum
competent to entertain the dispute was required to be determined with
reference to the provisions of the Act, 2021, which had already come

11
SCCR No. - 51 of 2026
into force on the date of institution of the suit. The findings recorded in
both the impugned orders on the question of maintainability, therefore,
suffer from a manifest error of law warranting interference in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause
Courts Act, 1887.
35. However, insofar as the rejection of the objection founded upon
the alleged absence of a cause of action against the substituted legal
representatives is concerned, the trial court has committed no error. The
finding that the plaint discloses a cause of action against the legal
representatives, who represent the estate of the deceased defendant, is in
consonance with the settled principles governing Order VII Rule 11 of
the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, calls for no interference.
36. The findings recorded by the learned trial court on the issue of
maintainability in both the impugned orders are, therefore, liable to be
set aside.
37. Consequently, S.C.C. Revision No.79 of 2025 and S.C.C.
Revision No.51 of 2026 are allowed. The orders dated 20.05.2025 and
02.04.2026 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Hapur are hereby
set aside insofar as they hold that S.C.C. Suit No.3 of 2021 is
maintainable before the Court of Small Causes notwithstanding the
enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy
Act, 2021.
38. As a necessary consequence, it is declared that S.C.C. Suit No.3 of
2021 is not maintainable before the Court of Small Causes and shall
proceed no further before the said forum.
39. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
landlord prays that liberty be reserved in favour of the respondent to
institute appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Act, 2021 in
respect of the relief of eviction claimed against the tenant. The prayer
merits acceptance.
40. The respondent-landlord shall, therefore, be at liberty to avail such
remedy as may be available under the Act, 2021 before the authority

12
SCCR No. - 51 of 2026
competent in law. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the rival claims and that all questions of fact and
law are expressly left open to be urged and adjudicated before the
competent authority in accordance with law.
(Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.)
July 15, 2026
Vikram/RKK/-
Digitally signed by :-
VIKRAM SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad