Neeraj Maheshwari vs Shri Narayanlal Dharamshala Trust, Kasganj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12345 of 2025
Neeraj Maheshwari
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
Shri Narayanlal Dharamshala Trust, Kasganj
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aarushi Birla, Utkarsh Birla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashutosh Ganguli, Pranab Kumar
Ganguli
A.F.R.
Court No. - 35
HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri Utkarsh Birla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Pranab Kumar Ganguli, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated
29.05.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kasganj in
S.C.C. Suit No. 2 of 2019 (Shri Narayanlal Dharamshala Trust, Kasganj
Vs. Neeraj Maheshwari), as also the subsequent order dated 27.08.2025
passed by the District Judge, Kasganj in S.C.C. Revision No. 16 of 2024
(Neeraj Maheshwari Vs. Shri Narayanlal Dharamshala Trust, Kasganj),
whereby the order passed by the trial court has been affirmed.
3. The controversy in the present petition relates to the tenancy of a
shop situated at Bazaar Nadrai Gate, near Jain Mandir, Kasganj, which
admittedly belongs to the respondent-Trust. The case set up by the
petitioner is that the shop was originally let out to his grandfather, Shri
Mormukut, and that the tenancy thereafter devolved upon his father, Shri
Devendra Kumar Maheshwari. According to the petitioner, upon the

2
A227 No. - 12345 of 2025
death of his father, he succeeded to the tenancy in the year 2005 and has
since been paying rent at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month.
4. It appears that a dispute arose between the parties in the year 2017
with regard to the petitioner's occupation of the shop. The petitioner
thereupon instituted Original Suit No. 218 of 2017 (Neeraj Maheshwari
Vs. Pankaj Jain) before the Court of 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Kasganj, seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining
his alleged forcible eviction from the tenanted premises. The said suit
was decreed ex parte by judgment and order dated 28.03.2019. The
petitioner asserts that the said judgment was not assailed and,
consequently, attained finality.
5. Thereafter, the respondent-Trust instituted S.C.C. Suit No. 2 of
2019 on 27.05.2019 before the Judge, Small Causes Court/Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Kasganj, seeking eviction of the petitioner from the
disputed shop.
6. Upon receipt of notice in the said suit, the petitioner deposited a
sum of Rs.34,000/- towards the rent alleged to be outstanding, along
with interest and other expenses, making a total deposit of Rs.44,000/-
on 29.07.2019. The respondent thereafter filed its objections to the said
deposit on 09.08.2019.
7. The petitioner filed his written statement in the SCC Suit on
13.11.2019, which was subsequently amended pursuant to an
amendment application allowed on 26.04.2023. In the written statement,
the petitioner disputed the allegations contained in the plaint and, inter
alia, pleaded that the Secretary of the respondent-Trust had declined to
accept rent on a monthly basis and had instead insisted upon payment at
the end of the year. The petitioner also referred to Misc. Case No. 16 of
2018, wherein, according to him, rent for the period from 01.10.2016 to
31.05.2018 had been deposited under Section 30(1) of the U.P. Act No.
13 of 1972.

3
A227 No. - 12345 of 2025
8. The petitioner also raised objections to the maintainability of the
SCC Suit and invoked Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It was contended that the
plaint did not disclose any cause of action and did not specify when,
where or in what manner the alleged cause of action had arisen. It was
further contended that the plaint did not contain the requisite particulars
regarding the status and authority of the respondent-Trust, including the
Trust Deed and the authority of its Secretary to institute the suit. The
petitioner also questioned the applicability of the U.P. Act No. 13 of
1972, contending that the respondent had merely asserted that the
premises were exempt from the operation of the said Act without placing
the requisite material on record.
9. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that the
trial court formulated the points for determination on 19.05.2023,
wherein Point No. 6 was specifically framed to consider whether the suit
was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
10. By order dated 29.05.2024, the trial court decided Point No. 6
against the defendant-tenant and rejected his contention that the plaint
did not disclose any cause of action. The objection raised under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC was, accordingly, not accepted.
11. The aforesaid order was assailed by the petitioner before the
revisional court. The District Judge, Kasganj, by order dated 27.08.2025,
dismissed S.C.C. Revision No. 16 of 2024. While doing so, the
revisional court took note of the petitioner's admission in the written
statement regarding his status as a tenant and also of his reference to
payment of rent upto a particular date. The revisional court further
noticed the assertion made in the plaint regarding service of a registered
notice by the plaintiff and, upon consideration of the plaint averments
and the pleadings, concluded that the landlord-tenant relationship
between the parties was disclosed and that it could not be said that the
plaint failed to disclose any cause of action. The revisional court
accordingly affirmed the order passed by the trial court.

4
A227 No. - 12345 of 2025
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, apart from the
objection that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action, several
other objections touching upon the maintainability of the suit had also
been raised in the written statement, but the same have neither been
considered nor adjudicated upon by the courts below.
13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand,
submits that the objection pressed before the trial court under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC was essentially confined to the alleged absence of cause of
action. It is submitted that the trial court, as well as the revisional court,
duly considered the averments contained in the plaint and the pleadings
of the parties and rightly concluded that the plaint disclosed a cause of
action. The suit, therefore, could not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11
CPC on the ground urged by the petitioner.
14. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and
the orders impugned herein, this Court finds that the principal question
which fell for consideration before the courts below was whether, on a
meaningful reading of the plaint, the same was liable to be rejected at the
threshold under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC on the ground that it failed to
disclose any cause of action.
15. The principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Order
VII Rule 11(a) CPC are well settled. The Court, while considering
whether a plaint discloses a cause of action, is required to undertake a
meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole. If, on such reading, the
plaint discloses a real and subsisting cause of action, it cannot be
rejected merely because the claim may ultimately fail upon adjudication.
Conversely, where the plaint is manifestly vexatious or meritless and
does not disclose a clear right to sue, the power under Order VII Rule 11
CPC is required to be exercised. The distinction between a real cause of
action and an illusion of a cause of action created by clever drafting has
been emphasised by the Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam v. T.V.
1
Satyapal .
1 (1977) 4 SCC 467

5
A227 No. - 12345 of 2025
16. The enquiry under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC is founded upon the
averments contained in the plaint. The Court is required to proceed on
the basis of the facts pleaded therein, read as a whole, and cannot
ordinarily embark upon an enquiry into their truth or correctness at that
stage. Equally, the pleas raised by the defendant in the written statement
are not germane to the determination of whether the plaint discloses a
cause of action. The principle has been authoritatively stated by the
2
Supreme Court in Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra , wherein it was
held that, for the purposes of clauses (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule 11
CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane and the pleas taken in the
written statement are wholly irrelevant.
17. The aforesaid principles have subsequently been reiterated and
comprehensively summarised by the Supreme Court in Dahiben v.
3
Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali . The plaint is required to be read in its
entirety and the Court, while considering an objection under Order VII
Rule 11(a) CPC, is not required to conduct a mini-trial or examine
whether the allegations contained in the plaint are ultimately capable of
being proved. The question at that stage is confined to whether,
assuming the material averments in the plaint to be correct for the
purposes of the enquiry, they disclose a cause of action and a right to
seek the relief claimed.
18. The expression "cause of action" in this context refers to the
bundle of material facts which the plaintiff must establish, if traversed,
in order to obtain the relief claimed. The test, therefore, is not whether
the plaintiff is likely ultimately to succeed, but whether the plaint
contains the foundational facts which, if established, would entitle the
plaintiff to the relief sought. The existence of a cause of action and the
proof of the facts constituting such cause of action are distinct matters. A
defence which, if established, may defeat the plaintiff's claim cannot
ordinarily be converted into a ground for rejection of the plaint under
Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC.
2 (2003) 1 SCC 557
3 (2020) 7 SCC 366

6
A227 No. - 12345 of 2025
19. It follows that the jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC,
though intended to prevent a wholly untenable litigation from
proceeding to trial, is nevertheless confined to the statutory enquiry
contemplated by that provision. The Court must guard against both
extremes: it must not permit a plaint which, on a meaningful reading,
discloses no real right to sue to proceed merely because it contains
cleverly drafted assertions; equally, it cannot reject a plaint by testing the
correctness of its averments, weighing the defence, or determining
disputed questions which properly fall for adjudication at the trial.
Where the plaint, taken at face value and read as a whole, discloses facts
constituting a right to seek the relief claimed, the objection under Order
VII Rule 11(a) CPC must fail.
20. In the present case, the trial court, while considering the aforesaid
objection, noticed that the plea had been raised by the defendant in
paragraph 33 of the written statement, wherein it was contended that no
cause of action had accrued in favour of the plaintiff and that the plaint
did not disclose when, where or on which date the alleged cause of
action had arisen. The trial court, however, examined the averments
contained in paragraph 10 of the plaint and found that the plaintiff had
specifically pleaded the facts constituting the alleged cause of action. As
noticed in the impugned order, the plaintiff had pleaded the defendant's
continued occupation of the disputed shop as a tenant, the subsisting
landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, the alleged failure to
pay rent despite repeated demands, the consequent arrears of rent and,
ultimately, termination of the tenancy by notices followed by the
defendant's failure to comply therewith.
21. The trial court further noticed the specific averment contained in
paragraph 5 of the plaint that the defendant had last paid rent on
30.08.2016 for the period from October, 2015 to September, 2016 and
had thereafter allegedly failed to pay rent, resulting in arrears with effect
from 01.10.2016. It also took note of the averment in paragraph 6 of the
plaint regarding the notices dated 21.09.2017, 07.10.2017 and

7
A227 No. - 12345 of 2025
01.11.2017, stated to have been sent to the defendant by registered post.
On a consideration of these averments, the trial court concluded that the
plaint disclosed the factual foundation for the relief of eviction claimed
by the plaintiff and was, therefore, not liable to be rejected under Order
VII Rule 11(a) CPC for want of disclosure of a cause of action.
22. The revisional court independently examined the aforesaid
conclusion. It, in particular, noticed that the defendant himself had
admitted in his written statement that he was a tenant in the disputed
premises and that the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties
was not in dispute in the pleadings. The revisional court also took note of
the plaintiff's allegation regarding non-payment of rent with effect from
01.10.2016 and the assertion regarding service of the notices terminating
the tenancy. Upon consideration of these averments, the revisional court
found that the plaint contained sufficient factual assertions constituting a
cause of action and that the conclusion reached by the trial court did not
suffer from any error.
23. The material placed before this Court further shows that the
petitioner had raised several other objections in his written statement. It
was, inter alia, asserted that the plaintiff-Trust was neither a registered
institution nor a juristic person competent to institute the suit; that no
meeting or resolution authorising the institution of the suit had been
passed by the Trust; that its Secretary, Pankaj Jain, had not been
authorised either to issue the notices or to institute the proceedings; that
the petitioner had in fact been tendering rent which was allegedly not
being accepted by the plaintiff and that, consequently, rent for the period
from 01.10.2016 to 31.05.2018 had been deposited under Section 30(1)
of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in Misc. Case No. 16 of 2018; that the
alleged notices had not been served upon him; and that no rent was
legally due from him. Reliance was also placed upon the decree dated
28.03.2019 passed in Original Suit No. 218 of 2017, instituted by the
petitioner seeking permanent injunction against his alleged forcible
dispossession.

8
A227 No. - 12345 of 2025
24. The aforesaid pleas do not demonstrate that the plaint itself fails to
disclose a cause of action. They substantially concern the correctness of
the plaintiff's allegations, the existence of a valid cause of termination,
the authority of the person instituting the proceedings, the alleged
payment or deposit of rent and the legal consequences flowing from such
payment or deposit. These are matters which may affect the plaintiff's
ultimate entitlement to relief, but their consideration cannot be equated
with an enquiry as to whether the plaint discloses the foundational facts
giving rise to the right asserted.
25. In the present case, the plaintiff has not merely asserted, in a
general or bald manner, that a cause of action exists. As noticed by both
the courts below, the plaint sets out the landlord-tenant relationship
between the parties, the alleged failure of the defendant to pay rent, the
period from which the rent is stated to have remained unpaid, the alleged
demands for payment, the notices stated to have been issued for
termination of the tenancy and the defendant's alleged failure to comply
therewith. These averments, taken at their face value for the limited
purpose of considering an objection under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC,
disclose the factual foundation on which the relief of eviction and the
consequential reliefs claimed by the plaintiff are founded.
26. The petitioner's own case proceeds on the basis that the tenancy in
respect of the disputed shop, was originally created in favour of his
grandfather, thereafter devolved upon his father and, following the death
of his father, upon the petitioner. His defence is that rent was duly
tendered and was also deposited in proceedings under Section 30(1) of
the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972; that no rent was legally outstanding; that
the notices were not duly served upon him; and that the representative of
the plaintiff lacked authority to institute the proceedings. These pleas
may have a bearing upon the plaintiff's ultimate entitlement to a decree
of eviction, but they do not, in the facts of the present case, establish that
the plaint itself fails to disclose a cause of action.

9
A227 No. - 12345 of 2025
27. The impugned orders further indicate that the trial court has
already formulated the points for determination and that the question
relating to the applicability of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is also
required to be adjudicated in the suit. The suit is stated to be at the stage
of hearing. In these circumstances, there appears to be no justification
for this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article
227 of the Constitution, to undertake an examination of the merits of the
various factual and legal defences otherwise available to the petitioner
before the trial court.
28. The revisional court, while affirming the order of the trial court,
has essentially proceeded on the basis that the plaint contains specific
averments constituting the alleged cause of action. To the extent the
revisional court also took note of the admission contained in the written
statement, the same was not germane to the determination of the
objection under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC and, in any event, was
unnecessary to sustain the conclusion reached by the trial court. On an
independent examination of the plaint, this Court is satisfied that the
plaint, read as a whole and taken at face value for the limited purpose of
the present enquiry, discloses the foundational facts constituting a cause
of action for the relief claimed. The conclusion reached by the courts
below, therefore, does not suffer from any patent jurisdictional error,
perversity or manifest illegality warranting interference under Article
227 of the Constitution.
29. It is clarified, however, that the rejection of the objection under
Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC does not amount to an adjudication upon the
correctness of the plaintiff's allegations regarding arrears of rent, service
or validity of the notices, entitlement to eviction, authority of the Trust
or its Secretary, applicability of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, effect of the
deposits allegedly made under Section 30 thereof, or the legal effect of
the decree dated 28.03.2019 passed in Original Suit No. 218 of 2017.
None of these questions is being finally determined in the present
proceedings. The consideration herein is confined to the limited question

10
A227 No. - 12345 of 2025
whether the plaint discloses a cause of action so as to attract rejection
under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC.
30. The petitioner shall remain at liberty to urge before the trial court
all such objections and defences as may otherwise be available to him in
law. The trial court shall consider and adjudicate upon the same in
accordance with law, on the basis of the pleadings and evidence properly
brought on record, uninfluenced by the observations contained in the
present order, except to the limited extent that the plaint cannot be
rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC for want of disclosure of a
cause of action.
31. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no ground to interfere
with the order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Kasganj in S.C.C. Suit No. 2 of 2019, as affirmed by the
revisional court by order dated 27.08.2025 in S.C.C. Revision No. 16 of
2024, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.)
September 02, 2026
Arun K. Singh
Digitally signed by :-
ARUN KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad