Shriram And Another vs Shivsevak Sharma And 6 Others

Court
Allahabad High Court

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
S.C.C. REVISION No. - 52 of 2026
Shriram And Another
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
Shivsevak Sharma And 6 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Surendra Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhishek Mishra, Anil Kumar, Ashok Kumar
Yadav
Court No. - 35

AFR
HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Heard Sri Surendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri
Abhishek Mishra and Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
2. The present SCC Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause
Courts Act, 1887 is directed against the order dated 19.03.2026 passed by
the District Judge, Hathras in SCC Case No.03 of 2025 (Shivsevak Sharma
and Others vs. Shriram and Others), whereby the application filed by the
defendant-tenants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, on the ground that the plaint disclosed a suit barred by law, was
rejected.
3. The undisputed facts emerging from the plaint, as averred by the
respondent-landlords, are as follows. The parties stand in the relationship of
landlord and tenant in respect of the premises in question; this relationship is
admitted and is not in dispute between the parties.
4. The plaint contains categorical averments acknowledging that U.P. Act
No. 16 of 2021 (the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy
Act, 2021, hereinafter 'the Act, 2021') is applicable to the subject premises,
and that the said premises fall within the ambit of Section 1(3) of the Act
and are not excluded from its operation.
5. The respondent-landlords have specifically pleaded that a tenancy
agreement was required to be executed in terms of Section 4 of the Act,
2021, and that despite requests, the defendant-tenants failed to cooperate in

SCCR No. 52 of 2026
2
the execution of such agreement. The plaint further invokes Section 9 of the
Act and claims arrears of rent for the period from 01.12.1999 to 31.05.2025
at an enhanced rate computed in accordance therewith.
6. The defendant-tenants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by law,
by virtue of the express ouster of civil court jurisdiction contained in Section
38(1) of the Act, 2021. The learned District Judge, Hathras rejected the said
application vide the impugned order dated 19.03.2026, which gives rise to
the present revision.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionists-tenants submits that the
plaint itself contains categorical averments acknowledging the applicability
of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 to the premises in question. It is pointed out that
the plaintiffs have pleaded that a tenancy agreement was required to be
executed in terms of Section 4 of the Act and that despite requests, the
defendants failed to cooperate. It is further submitted that the plaint contains
pleadings invoking Section 9 of the Act, on the basis whereof arrears of rent
from 01.12.1999 to 31.05.2025 at an enhanced rate have been claimed.
8. It is further urged that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the
parties is admitted and undisputed, and the premises fall within the ambit of
Section 1(3) of the Act and are not excluded from its operation, so that the
dispute is wholly governed by U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021. Consequently, in
view of the express bar contained under Section 38(1) of the Act, 2021, it is
submitted that the civil court lacks jurisdiction and the SCC suit itself is not
maintainable.
9. Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in
Akhilesh Kumar vs.
(Matters Under Article 227 No. 5153 of 2026), decided on
Sanjay Sahgal
19.05.2026. In the said decision, this Court, while examining the scheme of
the Act, 2021, particularly Sections 4, 21 and 38 thereof, held that the Act
constitutes a complete code governing landlord–tenant disputes and creates a
specialised adjudicatory mechanism for their resolution.
10. In Akhilesh Kumar (supra), it was further held that the absence of a
written tenancy agreement is not determinative where the landlord–tenant
relationship is admitted or is otherwise established on the basis of the
pleadings. The Court 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 said decision also reiterates that the Act is a self-contained statutory

SCCR No. 52 of 2026
3
framework intended to channelise landlord–tenant disputes before a
specialised forum, and that procedural deficiencies cannot defeat the
substantive operation of the statute where the foundational relationship is not
in dispute.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-landlords does not dispute
the existence of a landlord–tenant relationship between the parties or the
applicability of U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 to the premises in question. The
legal position that such disputes, where the relationship is admitted, are
governed exclusively by the Act, 2021 is also not disputed. The learned
counsel states that the respondents shall avail themselves of such remedies
as may be available to them under the provisions of the Act.
12. It is well settled that while considering an application under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC, the Court must confine itself to the averments in the plaint and
the documents relied upon therein, and no defence set up by the defendant
can be taken into consideration. The test is whether the plaint, on a
meaningful reading, discloses a cause of action or reveals that the suit is
barred by law, and if the latter, the plaint is liable to be rejected at the
threshold.
13. It is equally 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.
Continuation of proceedings in such circumstances would be an exercise in
futility and contrary to law.
14. In the present case, the plaint, on a plain and meaningful reading of its
own averments, acknowledges the applicability of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 to
the subject premises. The respondent-landlords have themselves invoked
Sections 4 and 9 of the Act and have grounded their claim for enhanced rent
thereon. These are not averments which can be disregarded or read in
isolation; they represent a deliberate and unambiguous invocation of the
statutory framework governing the tenancy.
15. The landlord–tenant relationship between the parties is admitted. The
premises fall within the ambit of Section 1(3) of the Act and are not
excluded from its operation. There is thus no dispute on the foundational
facts necessary to attract the jurisdiction of the Rent Authority under the Act,

SCCR No. 52 of 2026
4
2021. The question of whether a formal written tenancy agreement exists is
immaterial; as held in (supra), the Act operates on the
Akhilesh Kumar
substance of the relationship, not merely on the existence of a formal written
instrument.
16. Once the plaint itself discloses that the dispute is governed by the Act,
2021, as it plainly does in the present case, the bar contained under Section
38(1) thereof operates with full force and the jurisdiction of the civil court
stands excluded. The SCC Court, being a civil court within the meaning of
the Act, lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
17. The learned District Judge, Hathras, in rejecting the application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC, failed to consider and give effect to the express
statutory bar, the admitted landlord–tenant relationship, and the authoritative
pronouncement of this Court in (supra). The impugned
Akhilesh Kumar
order is, accordingly, unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.
18. In view of the foregoing, the present SCC Revision succeeds and is
allowed . The impugned order dated 19.03.2026 passed by the learned
District Judge, Hathras, rejecting the application filed by the defendant-
tenants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, is hereby set aside. The application
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC stands allowed and the plaint in SCC Case
No. 03 of 2025 (Shivsevak Sharma and Others vs. Shriram and Others) is
rejected as being barred by law in view of the express bar contained under
Section 38(1) of U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021.
19. The respondents are at liberty to pursue such remedies as may be
available to them under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021. It is made
clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the
respondents' claims, which shall be considered afresh by the competent
authority in accordance with law and on its own merits.
20. In the event the respondents approach the Rent Authority under the
provisions of the Act, 2021, the said Authority shall endeavour to conclude
the proceedings expeditiously and, where possible, within the period
prescribed under the statute.
21. There shall be no order as to costs.
May 27, 2026
RKK/-
(Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RAJ KUMAR KANNAUJIA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad