Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1005
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10256 OF 2025
MAHESH CHAND (DEAD)
THROUGH LR(S) … Appellant (s)
VERSUS
BRIJESH KUMAR & ORS. … Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The appellant-landlord has filed the present appeal
1
impugning the judgment of the High Court in Second Appeal No.1623
2
of 1992 . Vide aforesaid judgment, the appeal preferred by the
appellant was partially accepted while setting aside the judgment of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2025.08.19
17:56:36 IST
Reason:
1
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2
Dated 15.02.2024
1
3
the First Appellate Court . However, the High Court passed an order
4
under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC directing return of plaint to the
appellant for presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
5
The Trial Court had decreed the suit filed by the appellant for
possession and recovery of rent. An appeal was preferred by the
respondent nos.1 to 3 - tenants. The First Appellate Court had reversed
the findings while holding that the Trial Court did not have jurisdiction
to entertain the lis because the land in question is agricultural.
2. Brief facts of the case as available on record are that a
tenancy agreement was entered into between the parties on
31.07.1970, vide which portion of land was taken on rent by the
predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.1 to 3 @ ₹ 150/- per month.
The land was taken for the purpose of setting up of Indian Oil petrol
pump by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.1 to 3. It was
mentioned in the tenancy agreement that on failure by the tenant to pay
rent regularly, the appellant shall have the right to evict him and
recover the arrears of rent. The aforesaid tenancy agreement was duly
registered on 31.07.1970.
3
Court of Special Judge & Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr
4
Hereinafter referred to as the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
5
Court of Additional Civil Judge, Bulandshahr
2
3. As the predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.1 to 3
failed to pay rent regularly, a suit for eviction was filed by the appellant
in the year 1974. In the aforesaid suit, an application was filed by the
predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.1 to 3 contending that the
Civil Court lacked jurisdiction. It was claimed that land in question is
agricultural. Hence, only the Revenue Court will have jurisdiction to
deal with the issue. The aforesaid application was rejected by the Trial
Court vide order dated 14.08.1976 as the land in question, since the
very beginning, was let out for non-agricultural purpose for setting up
of a petrol pump, hence, Civil Court will have jurisdiction. The order
was not challenged by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.1
to 3.
4. Finally, after trial, the suit for possession and arrears of rent
filed by the appellant, was decreed vide judgment dated 30.11.1981.
Aggrieved against the same, both the parties preferred appeals before
the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, referring to
6
various provisions of the UPZALR Act , opined that the land in question
was not declared non-agricultural in terms of Section 143 of the UPZALR
Act. Hence, the Civil Court will not have jurisdiction. The judgment
and decree of the Trial Court was set aside. In the appeal preferred by
6
The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
3
the appellant, the claim was for increase of mesne profit. However, the
same was dismissed.
5. Against the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the
appellant preferred second appeal before the High Court. The High
Court allowed the appeal in part. The judgment and decree of the First
Appellate Court was set aside and substituted by an order, under
Order VII Rule 10 of CPC, directing return of the plaint to the appellant
for presentation before the appropriate forum. The High Court opined
that there being no declaration under Section 143 of the UPZALR Act for
the land in question to be non-agricultural, the jurisdiction of the Civil
Court is barred.
6. The aforesaid judgment is impugned before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that from the
very beginning, the land in question was let out to the predecessor-in-
interest of respondent nos.1 to 3, way back in the year 1970, for setting
up of a petrol pump, which was non-agricultural purpose. Nothing lies
in the mouth of the respondent nos.1 to 3 to claim that the land is
agricultural, just with a view to defeat the rightful claim of the appellant.
He further submitted that initial approval was granted by the
competent authority under Section 143 of the UPZALR Act for use of
land for non-agricultural purposes on 10.12.1975. However, after
4
litigation, finally vide order dated 14.03.1986 passed by the Deputy
Collector, Khurja, the land was declared non-agricultural. The same
attained finality. No doubt, civil suit for eviction was filed prior to
aforesaid declaration of the land as non-agricultural. However, the
nature of the land having been changed in terms of the provisions of
UPZALR Act during the pendency of the proceedings, the suit filed by
the appellant could not have been dismissed on account of jurisdiction
as appeals are continuation of proceedings and subsequent events also
have to be taken note of. The First Appellate Court, while adjudicating
the appeal of the respondent nos.1 to 3, failed to take notice of this
development.
8. In the case in hand, suit was filed seeking eviction on
account of non-payment of rent, which was due from 01.07.1972
onwards. Infact, it was admitted by the respondent nos. 1 to 3 that rent
was paid to the appellant only up to 30.06.1972. Thereafter, claim of
payment of rent to a third person was of no relevance as that person
had no concern with the land in question. Since day one, the
respondent nos. 1 to 3 knew that the land had been taken by them on
rent for commercial purpose. They had taken all the permissions from
different departments for setting up of a petrol pump. Hence, their
argument is totally misconceived.
5
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent nos.
1 to 3 submitted that the declaration made by the competent authority
under Section 143 of UPZALR Act is required to be registered in terms
of Section 145 thereof. In the case in hand, there was no registration.
Any declaration without registration is merely a paper, which cannot
be relied upon to claim that the land was declared as non-agricultural.
The declaration had to be on the date of filing of the suit. He further
referred to various provisions of UPZALR Act to claim that the tenant
will become owner without transferable rights in the facts and
circumstances of the case. There is no error in the order passed by the
High Court. The appeal deserves to be dismissed.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant documents on record.
11. The basic facts that have been noticed above, which are not
in dispute, are that a registered tenancy agreement was entered into
between the parties on 31.07.1970. From day one, the land of the
appellant was taken by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent
nos.1 to 3 for setting up of a petrol pump, which is a commercial and
non-agricultural purpose. The suit was filed in the year 1974 seeking
possession and arrears of rent. An application filed by the
predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.1 to 3 raising issue of
6
jurisdiction, was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated
14.08.1976. The order was not challenged and the Trial Court decreed
the suit. During pendency of the suit, initial approval was given to the
appellant under Section 143 of the UPZALR Act vide order dated
10.12.1975. However, after litigation, the issue was finally resolved by
order dated 14.03.1986. The aforesaid fact is not in dispute. Meaning
thereby, the initial order was passed when the civil suit was pending.
However, the finality was attained during the pendency of the appeal
before the First Appellate Court. Without even noticing the factum of
the land in question being non-agricultural, declared vide order dated
14.03.1986, the First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the
Civil Court will not have jurisdiction to entertain the lis and only a
Revenue Court is the competent forum. Impugned judgment and
decree of the Trial Court was set aside and the suit of the appellant was
dismissed.
12. The High Court framed the following substantial questions
of law vide order dated 20.02.2020:
“1. Whether the provisions of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, 1950 would
apply to the (sic) land let out for non agricultural purposes?
2. Whether the provisions of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, 1950 would
apply to the (sic) agricultural land located in an area that has
fallen within the limits of a town area upon extension of
boundaries after the date of vesting?
7
3. Whether the land situate in an urban area utilized for to
(sic) a non agricultural purposes would still be deemed to an
agricultural land in the absence of a declaration under
Section 143 U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act?
4. Whether a tenant is estopped from disputing the nature
of the land demised after utilizing the same for non
agricultural purposes?
5. Whether the provisions of Section 165 U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act
would be attracted either in its amended form or un-
amended, to land that has been found to be utilized for non
agricultural purposes post letting?”
13. While dealing with question nos.1 to 3 together, the High
Court opined that unless there is mandatory declaration under Section
143 of the UPZALR Act, the land will retain its character of being
agricultural. Hence, the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court
regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court were upheld. It may be
relevant to add here that even the High Court had not noticed the fact
that the land in question was declared to be non-agricultural initially
vide order dated 10.12.1975, which was finally passed on 14.03.1986.
It happened during the pendency of the litigation.
14. The High Court while upholding the judgment and decree
of the First Appellate Court on the issue of jurisdiction, was of the
opinion that in the circumstances, the plaint of the appellant deserved
to be returned, hence, passed an order under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC
directing the same.
8
15. There is no quarrel on the proposition of law that appeal is
continuance of proceedings and any developments which may take
place during pendency of the appeal or suit, going to the root of the
case, can always be taken notice of to avoid multiplicity of litigation. It
remained an undisputed fact that finally vide order dated 14.03.1986,
the land in question was declared non-agricultural. In the case in hand,
from the very beginning, vide registered tenancy agreement, the land
was taken by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent nos.1 to 3
for non-agricultural purposes. This fact also cannot be denied that on
the date when the First Appellate Court passed the judgment on
27.07.1992, which was upheld by the High Court on 15.02.2024, the land
in question had already been declared as non-agricultural under
Section 143 of the UPZALR Act. After return of plaint in terms of
judgment of the High Court dated 15.02.2024, the Revenue Court will
not have the jurisdiction to entertain the lis, as the land has been
declared non-agricultural during pendency of the litigation. The Civil
Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
16. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the
respondent nos. 1 to 3 is that on the date of filing of the suit, declaration
under Section 143 of the UPZALR Act being not available, hence, the
suit was not maintainable, is liable to be rejected.
9
17. His further argument that because of non-registration of the
declaration of the section 143 of the Act, it was a waste paper and could
not be relied upon, is also of no consequence. Section 145 of the
UPZALR Act, on which reliance is sought to be placed, in support of the
arguments, does not cast any duty on the land owner to get it
registered. As per Section 145 of the UPZALR Act, it is the duty of the
Assistant Collector-in-charge of the Sub-Division to forward a copy of
the declaration made under Section 143 of the UPZALR Act to the Sub
Registrar to do the needful. Such registration is to be made free of cost
notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Registration Act,
1908. Meaning thereby, no duty is cast on the appellant to get the same
registered. Apparently, it is merely a procedure. No fee has to be paid
as the relevant registration was free of cost. Merely on account of
deficiency by the officers, the appellant cannot be deprived of the
benefits of the declaration so made.
18. For the reasons mentioned above, in our opinion, there is
merit in the present appeal. The same is accordingly allowed. The
impugned judgment and decree passed by the High Court is set aside.
As the merits of the controversy were not dealt with by the First
Appellate Court or the High Court, the case is remitted back to the First
Appellate Court to be considered and decided on merits. Litigation
10
being more than 50 years old, we direct the First Appellate Court to
hear and decide the appeal within a period of six months from the date
of receipt of the copy of this order.
19. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of
with no order as to costs.
.........................................J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
..........................................J.
(MANMOHAN)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 19, 2025.
11