Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 584
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No(s). /2025
(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 8929/2024)
AMIT KUMAR APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
NIHAL SINGH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. On perusal of the Office Report dated 22.04.2025, it is
noted that respondent Nos.1 and 3 were served on 03.05.2024 and
respondent No.2 was again served on 13.09.2024. However, there
is no appearance on behalf of the said respondents. Hence, they
are placed ex parte.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the
appellant, along with respondent No. 3, had purchased the suit
schedule property situated at Khasra No. 13/2 in Village of
Nagla Bhambhu Jaat, Tehsil Sasni, District Hathras, from Smt.
Satyawati Devi under a registered sale deed dated 12.08.1997.
The respondent No. 1 was a tenant on the property and it was
rented to him to run a service station. Therefore, he possessed
a room, a shed, a water tank, etc. on the rented property which
he had constructed. The monthly rent that used to be paid by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2025.04.29
17:11:45 IST
Reason:
respondent No. 1 was Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only). But
since March 2021, the respondent No. 1 had stopped paying the
1
monthly rent. In June 2021, the appellant got to know that the
respondent No. 1 had sub-let the property to respondent No. 2
and therefore he was making an unlawful gain from the property
and depriving the appellant of the monthly rents.
4. The appellant and respondent No. 3 then filed a suit being
Small Cause Case No. 8/01 before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.
Div.) Hathras, seeking the eviction of respondent Nos. 1 and 2
from the schedule property and recovery of the arrears of rent
and damages. By order dated 10.07.2019, the Small Causes Judge,
Hathras decreed the suit and directed respondent No. 1 to hand
over possession of the disputed suit schedule property to the
appellant and to pay the arrears of rent for the period from
01.03.2021 to 07.07.2021 at the rate of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five
Hundred only) per month.
5. Being aggrieved by the decree dated 10.07.2019, the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a revision petition being Small
Cause Revision No. 16/2019 before the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Hathras. The said revision petition was allowed
by the Revisional Court on 25.05.2023 and the matter was
remanded to the trial court to be decided afresh by hearing
both parties. The Revisional Court held that the trial court
has to first decide the issue if the schedule property is an
open land, on the basis of which it will be decided if the
Small Causes Court has the jurisdiction to decide the suit.
2
6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2023, the
appellant and respondent No. 3 filed a petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India before High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad. By the impugned order dated
28.10.2023, the High Court has upheld the findings of the
Revisional Court to the extent of remanding the matter to the
trial court to decide as to, whether, the schedule property was
an open land and accordingly if the Small Causes Court had the
jurisdiction to decide the suit. The present appeal has
therefore been filed by the appellant to challenge the impugned
order dated 28.10.2023 passed by the High Court in Matters
Under Article 227 No. 8579 of 2023.
7. Since there has been no representation on behalf of the
respondents who have been placed ex-parte, we have heard
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant only.
8. Learned senior counsel submitted that the Revisional
Court as well as the High Court were not right in remanding the
matter to the Trial Court by setting aside the judgment and
decree of the Trial Court so as to decide on point No.2
contained in ‘paragraph 12’ of the Revisional Court’s order
inasmuch as the dispute as to whether the schedule property was
open land or not had to be adjudicated upon afresh.
9. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that
the entire controversy raised by the respondents-defendants was
wholly unwarranted inasmuch as in ‘paragraph 18’ of the
3
written statement of the respondents-defendants, it was
categorically stated that there were several structures on the
disputed plot and therefore it cannot be considered to be an
open land simpliciter so as to raise an issue to the effect
that the Small Causes Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain
the suit.
10. He drew our attention to ‘paragraph 18’ of the written
statement filed by the respondents/defendants (Annexure P-4 of
the memorandum of the Special Leave Petition) and contended
that in view of the categorical admission made by the
respondents herein, the controversy did not arise at all. In
the circumstances, learned senior counsel for the appellant
contended that the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 relied upon by the
Revisional Court was not applicable and the suit for eviction
was maintainable.
11. In this regard it was submitted that U.P. Act No.13 of
1972, called the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 applies only to urban
properties whereas the suit scheduled property is in a rural
area. In this regard, our attention was drawn to the aforesaid
Act. It was contended that the categorical admission made on
behalf of the respondents herein would imply that the suit for
eviction was maintainable before the Small Causes Court, Civil
Judge, Hathras which has rightly decreed the suit. Therefore,
the order of the High Court affirming the order of the
Revisional Court as well as the order of the Revisional Court
4
may be set aside and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court
may be given effect to.
12. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for
the appellant in light of the material on record. We find that
the appellant herein had purchased the suit schedule property
under a registered sale deed dated 12.08.1997, from one Smt.
Satyawati Devi; defendant No.1 was the tenant of the property
consisting of a room, a shed, a water tank, etc. The monthly
tenancy was Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only). Defendant No.
1 had paid the rents till 28.02.2001, after which the tenancy
was used as a service station. From 01.03.2001 onwards, the
appellant has not received rents.
13. In the circumstances, the appellant was constrained to
file Small Causes Case No. 8/2001 seeking the relief of arrears
of rents as well as the eviction of the tenants from the suit
schedule property; that in the said suit as noted above, the
defendants have admitted the fact that the property in question
had construction as well as there was land appurtenant thereto.
Paragraph 18 of the written statement of the defendants reads
as under:
“18. That on the disputed plot, several structures
have been erected, including a solid built room, a
water tank, a service station, and two steps.
Additionally, a jet pump has been installed, and an
approved electricity connection is registered under
the name of defendant No.1. Furthermore, the
surrounding foundation has been completely filled.”
5
14. When there has been an admission on the part of the
defendants/respondents herein that the suit schedule property
consisted of a room, a water tank, a service station and a jet
pump installed with electricity connection which was being used
for the purpose of washing of vehicles, then it cannot be said
that the suit schedule property was an open land as such.
15. Since the Trial Court had adjudicated the suit and had
granted the decree in favour of the appellant herein by
directing the eviction of the tenants/defendants/respondents,
issue No.2 raised in the Revision Petition filed by them being
Revision Small Causes No.16/2019 was wholly otiose. This was
because all that the Revisional Court had to note was whether
the decree granted by the Trial Court was just and proper or
not. When the respondents herein had not raised any
jurisdictional issue with respect to the jurisdiction of the
Small Causes Courts to entertain the suit, in the face of the
categorical admission made by them in paragraph 18 of their
written statement, issue No.2 raised was unnecessarily raised.
On that point, the matter was remanded to the Trial Court which
order has been affirmed by the High Court in the impugned
order.
We find that in the facts and circumstances of this case,
raising of the said issue was wholly unnecessary and the
correctness or otherwise of the decree only had to be seen. In
view of the admission of the respondents herein, we do not
think that any issue touching upon the jurisdiction of the
6
Small Causes Court to adjudicate the suit arose at all.
16. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of
the High Court, which has affirmed the order the Revisional
Court. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court
is sustained.
17. The respondents/defendants are directed to handover
vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the
st
appellant herein on or before 31 October, 2025.
During the said period, the respondents shall not cause
any damage to the said property. They shall not create any
third-party interest; they shall pay the rents and arrears of
rents as decreed in the suit.
18. In the event there is any failure on the part of the
respondents to comply with the aforesaid conditions, then
liberty is reserved to the appellant herein to seek execution
of this order.
This appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………………………………………………….,J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
………………………………………………………………..,J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 23, 2025.
7
ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.7 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8929/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-10-2023
in MUA227 No. 8579/2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad]
AMIT KUMAR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
NIHAL SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 85876/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 23-04-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL
For Petitioner(s) Mr. C. Mohan Rao, Sr. Adv.
Mr. K. B.Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Raja Ram Tripathi, Adv.
Ms. Kalpana, Adv.
Mr. Pushkar Anand, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed and disposed of in terms of
the signed non-reportable order which is placed on the
file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
8
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 584
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No(s). /2025
(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 8929/2024)
AMIT KUMAR APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
NIHAL SINGH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. On perusal of the Office Report dated 22.04.2025, it is
noted that respondent Nos.1 and 3 were served on 03.05.2024 and
respondent No.2 was again served on 13.09.2024. However, there
is no appearance on behalf of the said respondents. Hence, they
are placed ex parte.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the
appellant, along with respondent No. 3, had purchased the suit
schedule property situated at Khasra No. 13/2 in Village of
Nagla Bhambhu Jaat, Tehsil Sasni, District Hathras, from Smt.
Satyawati Devi under a registered sale deed dated 12.08.1997.
The respondent No. 1 was a tenant on the property and it was
rented to him to run a service station. Therefore, he possessed
a room, a shed, a water tank, etc. on the rented property which
he had constructed. The monthly rent that used to be paid by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2025.04.29
17:11:45 IST
Reason:
respondent No. 1 was Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only). But
since March 2021, the respondent No. 1 had stopped paying the
1
monthly rent. In June 2021, the appellant got to know that the
respondent No. 1 had sub-let the property to respondent No. 2
and therefore he was making an unlawful gain from the property
and depriving the appellant of the monthly rents.
4. The appellant and respondent No. 3 then filed a suit being
Small Cause Case No. 8/01 before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.
Div.) Hathras, seeking the eviction of respondent Nos. 1 and 2
from the schedule property and recovery of the arrears of rent
and damages. By order dated 10.07.2019, the Small Causes Judge,
Hathras decreed the suit and directed respondent No. 1 to hand
over possession of the disputed suit schedule property to the
appellant and to pay the arrears of rent for the period from
01.03.2021 to 07.07.2021 at the rate of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five
Hundred only) per month.
5. Being aggrieved by the decree dated 10.07.2019, the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a revision petition being Small
Cause Revision No. 16/2019 before the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Hathras. The said revision petition was allowed
by the Revisional Court on 25.05.2023 and the matter was
remanded to the trial court to be decided afresh by hearing
both parties. The Revisional Court held that the trial court
has to first decide the issue if the schedule property is an
open land, on the basis of which it will be decided if the
Small Causes Court has the jurisdiction to decide the suit.
2
6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2023, the
appellant and respondent No. 3 filed a petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India before High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad. By the impugned order dated
28.10.2023, the High Court has upheld the findings of the
Revisional Court to the extent of remanding the matter to the
trial court to decide as to, whether, the schedule property was
an open land and accordingly if the Small Causes Court had the
jurisdiction to decide the suit. The present appeal has
therefore been filed by the appellant to challenge the impugned
order dated 28.10.2023 passed by the High Court in Matters
Under Article 227 No. 8579 of 2023.
7. Since there has been no representation on behalf of the
respondents who have been placed ex-parte, we have heard
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant only.
8. Learned senior counsel submitted that the Revisional
Court as well as the High Court were not right in remanding the
matter to the Trial Court by setting aside the judgment and
decree of the Trial Court so as to decide on point No.2
contained in ‘paragraph 12’ of the Revisional Court’s order
inasmuch as the dispute as to whether the schedule property was
open land or not had to be adjudicated upon afresh.
9. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that
the entire controversy raised by the respondents-defendants was
wholly unwarranted inasmuch as in ‘paragraph 18’ of the
3
written statement of the respondents-defendants, it was
categorically stated that there were several structures on the
disputed plot and therefore it cannot be considered to be an
open land simpliciter so as to raise an issue to the effect
that the Small Causes Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain
the suit.
10. He drew our attention to ‘paragraph 18’ of the written
statement filed by the respondents/defendants (Annexure P-4 of
the memorandum of the Special Leave Petition) and contended
that in view of the categorical admission made by the
respondents herein, the controversy did not arise at all. In
the circumstances, learned senior counsel for the appellant
contended that the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 relied upon by the
Revisional Court was not applicable and the suit for eviction
was maintainable.
11. In this regard it was submitted that U.P. Act No.13 of
1972, called the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 applies only to urban
properties whereas the suit scheduled property is in a rural
area. In this regard, our attention was drawn to the aforesaid
Act. It was contended that the categorical admission made on
behalf of the respondents herein would imply that the suit for
eviction was maintainable before the Small Causes Court, Civil
Judge, Hathras which has rightly decreed the suit. Therefore,
the order of the High Court affirming the order of the
Revisional Court as well as the order of the Revisional Court
4
may be set aside and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court
may be given effect to.
12. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for
the appellant in light of the material on record. We find that
the appellant herein had purchased the suit schedule property
under a registered sale deed dated 12.08.1997, from one Smt.
Satyawati Devi; defendant No.1 was the tenant of the property
consisting of a room, a shed, a water tank, etc. The monthly
tenancy was Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only). Defendant No.
1 had paid the rents till 28.02.2001, after which the tenancy
was used as a service station. From 01.03.2001 onwards, the
appellant has not received rents.
13. In the circumstances, the appellant was constrained to
file Small Causes Case No. 8/2001 seeking the relief of arrears
of rents as well as the eviction of the tenants from the suit
schedule property; that in the said suit as noted above, the
defendants have admitted the fact that the property in question
had construction as well as there was land appurtenant thereto.
Paragraph 18 of the written statement of the defendants reads
as under:
“18. That on the disputed plot, several structures
have been erected, including a solid built room, a
water tank, a service station, and two steps.
Additionally, a jet pump has been installed, and an
approved electricity connection is registered under
the name of defendant No.1. Furthermore, the
surrounding foundation has been completely filled.”
5
14. When there has been an admission on the part of the
defendants/respondents herein that the suit schedule property
consisted of a room, a water tank, a service station and a jet
pump installed with electricity connection which was being used
for the purpose of washing of vehicles, then it cannot be said
that the suit schedule property was an open land as such.
15. Since the Trial Court had adjudicated the suit and had
granted the decree in favour of the appellant herein by
directing the eviction of the tenants/defendants/respondents,
issue No.2 raised in the Revision Petition filed by them being
Revision Small Causes No.16/2019 was wholly otiose. This was
because all that the Revisional Court had to note was whether
the decree granted by the Trial Court was just and proper or
not. When the respondents herein had not raised any
jurisdictional issue with respect to the jurisdiction of the
Small Causes Courts to entertain the suit, in the face of the
categorical admission made by them in paragraph 18 of their
written statement, issue No.2 raised was unnecessarily raised.
On that point, the matter was remanded to the Trial Court which
order has been affirmed by the High Court in the impugned
order.
We find that in the facts and circumstances of this case,
raising of the said issue was wholly unnecessary and the
correctness or otherwise of the decree only had to be seen. In
view of the admission of the respondents herein, we do not
think that any issue touching upon the jurisdiction of the
6
Small Causes Court to adjudicate the suit arose at all.
16. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of
the High Court, which has affirmed the order the Revisional
Court. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court
is sustained.
17. The respondents/defendants are directed to handover
vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the
st
appellant herein on or before 31 October, 2025.
During the said period, the respondents shall not cause
any damage to the said property. They shall not create any
third-party interest; they shall pay the rents and arrears of
rents as decreed in the suit.
18. In the event there is any failure on the part of the
respondents to comply with the aforesaid conditions, then
liberty is reserved to the appellant herein to seek execution
of this order.
This appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………………………………………………….,J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
………………………………………………………………..,J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 23, 2025.
7
ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.7 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8929/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-10-2023
in MUA227 No. 8579/2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad]
AMIT KUMAR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
NIHAL SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 85876/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 23-04-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL
For Petitioner(s) Mr. C. Mohan Rao, Sr. Adv.
Mr. K. B.Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Raja Ram Tripathi, Adv.
Ms. Kalpana, Adv.
Mr. Pushkar Anand, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed and disposed of in terms of
the signed non-reportable order which is placed on the
file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
8