ASHOK SHARMA vs MANISH GUPTA
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010177972025
2025:UHC:9993
Judgment Reserved on:31.10.2026
Judgment Delivered on:03.11.2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
CIVIL REVISION NO.125 OF 2025
Ashok Sharma ...Revisionist/ Defendant
Versus
Manish Gupta …Respondent/ Plaintiff.
Counsel for the revisionist : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan
(through V.C.) and Mr. Naveen
Singh Mer, learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondent : Mr. Nikhil Singhal (through V.C.)
and Mr. Sameer Rawat, learned
counsel.
( per Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, J. )
JUDGMENT:
The revisionist / defendant has assailed an order
dated 04.11.2025 passed by District Judge, Haridwar in SCC
Suit No. 41 of 2024, titled as “Manish Gupta vs. Ashok
Sharma” whereby application no.29C-1 filed by the revisionist
/ defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC
was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent / plaintiff
had instituted a suit before the Small Causes Court contending
that revisionist was a tenant in the premises at Shivalik Nagar,
Dehradun at the rent of ₹50,000/- per month since May 2023.
1
UKHC010177972025
2025:UHC:9993
It was further stated in the plaint that the tenancy was
terminated by a notice dated 10.09.2024. It was, further,
contended that revisionist / defendant was in default of
payment of rent and had not evicted the premises after
termination of tenancy.
3. The suit was filed on 02.12.2024 for eviction,
arrears of rent and mense profit. The revisionist/ defendant
filed his written statement on 04.04.2025 and, thereafter, filed
an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on 13.10.2025
contending that in view of the enactment of Uttarakhand
Tenancy Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as “ the Act of
2021 ”) effective from 01.01.2023, the suit was not maintable
before the Civil Court and was to be instituted in the Rent
Court.
4. Reliance was placed on Section 4 read with Section
40 of the Act of 2021. The said applicaton no.29C-1 filed
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected on 04.11.2025
against which the present Civil Revision has been preferred by
the revisionist/defendant.
5. At the admission stage itself, a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court, after taking into consideration the submission
made by the revisionist / defendant that he would vacate the
premises in two years, disposed of the Civil Revision on
12.11.2025. The order dated 12.11.2025 reads as under:
2
UKHC010177972025
2025:UHC:9993
“3. The instant revision has been preferred under Section 25
of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 against the
judgment and order dated 04.11.2025, passed by District
and Sessions Judge, Haridwar in SCC Suit No. 41 of 2024,
titled as “Manish Gupta vs. Ashok Sharma” whereby the
application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section
151 C.P.C. has been rejected.
4. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel for the
revisionist, on instructions, apprise to this Court that the
revisionist is ready to vacate the property in question,
however, he prays that two years time may be given to the
revisionist to vacate the property in question.
5. On the other side, Mr. Nikhil Singhal, learned counsel for
the respondent have accepted the proposal of Mr.
P.K.Chauhan.
6. In view of submissions as made above and particularly
taking into consideration that the revisionist is ready to
vacate the property in question within two years, the instant
revision is disposed of finally with a direction to the
revisionist to vacate the property in question on or before
31.10.2027.
7. In reference to the aforesaid undertaking the revisionist
shall file an affidavit before the District and Sessions Judge
Haridwar within two weeks positively from today.
8. It is further made clear that if the revisionist breach any
undertaking given above the respondent shall apprise to this
Court by moving an application so that the appropriate steps
shall be taken against the revisionist.”
6. Thereafter, clarification / modification application
was filed by revisionist / defendant and respondent/ plaintiff
seeking clarification / modification in order dated 12.11.2025
and the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 18.08.2026
recalled order dated 12.11.2025 and released the matter.
Order dated 18.08.2026 reads as under:
“ 1. The instant civil revision was disposed of finally on
12.11.2025 on an undertaking of the revisionist that he is
ready to vacate the shop in question provided he may be
given two years’ time to vacate, which was also accepted by
the respondent, consequently, revisionist was directed to
vacate the shop in question on or before 31.10.2027.
2. Thereafter, a clarification/modification application
bearing MCC No. 01 of 2025 was moved on behalf of the
revisionist for seeking clarification of the order dated
3
UKHC010177972025
2025:UHC:9993
12.11.2025, that monthly rent of the shop is Rs. 18,000/-.
3. Thereafter, another application i.e. MCC No. 02 of 2025
is moved by the respondent for seeking
clarification/modification of the same order dated 12.11.2025
to the effect that the revisionist be restrained to sub-let the
shop under his tenancy and shall not change it’s nature and
revisionist be directed to pay use and occupational charges
at the admitted rate of Rs. 50,000/- per month.
In support of such clarification as sought it is
contended in paragraph 5 that market rent of the property in
question is Rs. 50,000/- per month and as per the Account
Statement the revisionist also paid rent at the rate of Rs.
50,000/- as per entry dated 07.05.2023 and 23.06.2023
along with the copy of an agreement as well as rent deed of
property situated in the same vicinity in order to establish
that the market rent in the locality is at Rs. 1 lakh per
month. In addition to this, further reference is also made
that the revisionist is also having commercial property in the
same locality where he is running similar business in the
name and style of SSD Motors by placing on record some
photographs.
4. Thereafter, another MCC No. 03 of 2026 is also filed by
the revisionist by raising an objection to the
clarification/modification as sought by the respondent by
annexing the rent agreement dated 23.10.2020 in order to
show that the clarification as sought with regard monthly
rent at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- is misconceived.
5. Thereafter, another MCC No. 04 of 2026 is moved by
the revisionist for recalling a subsequent order dated
26.02.2026, whereby, the counsel for the revisionist was
directed to get instructions within how much period he will
vacate the shop in question and by moving this application
the revisionist make an attempt to twist the entire issue and
also touch the merit though on the first day the revisionist
himself undertakes to vacate the shop.
On this MCC 04 of 2026 a further objection is filed by
the respondent by giving reference of the report of Tehsildar
which in fact was invited by this court by virtue of order
dated 07.01.2026 and submits that the mother of revisionist
running also a workshop in the same locality in the name of
SSD Motors and another property is also owned by the
brother of the revisionist.
6. Subsequently, an additional affidavit was further filed
on 09.06.2026 by the revisionist in compliance to the order
passed by this court on 09.06.2026, whereby, this court take
serious note of giving false statement by the revisionist
about two other properties in the same locality.
7. Subsequent thereto, a supplementary affidavit has
been filed along with IA No. 06 of 2026 on 16.06.2026 by
the revisionist, wherein, the revisionist also gives reference
of a First Information Report dated 15.06.2023 with regard
to a different issue, however, which has no relevance which
itself shows that the revisionist is deliberately diverting the
4
UKHC010177972025
2025:UHC:9993
issue.
8. Now, what this court has observed that though revision
was disposed of finally on 12.11.2025 on an undertaking of
the revisionist, despite this, both the sides are repeatedly
filing applications by raising disputing question of fact. Apart
from this, the revisionist has also not come up with clean
hands as he has not disclosed other commercial properties
wherein he is already running two workshops in the same
locality, one in the name of “SSD Motors”, and another one,
wherein, his brother is shown to be an employee of the
workshop.
9. To verify about two other commercial properties, which
are under the effective control of the revisionist the Tehsildar
also submit a report on 06.01.2026 and after perusing the
report of Tehsildar the learned counsel for the revisionist was
directed to get instructions within how much period he will
vacate the shop in question but shall not seek more than two
months, which is reflected from the order dated 26.02.2026.
This time was reduced provisionally because as per the
report of Tehsildar there are two other workshops in the
same locality run by the revisionist and as apprised by Mr.
Nikhil Singhal both the workshops are under the effective
control of the revisionist since in one of the workshop the
brother is being shown as an employee and in another one
Mobile number of revisionist is reflected from the Sign Board.
10. The subsequent order dated 09.06.2026 reflects the
report of Tehsildar and after gone through the report and one
another document i.e. paper no. 18C/2 this court observed
that the revisionist making a false statement by giving
impression that SSD Motor Workshop is being run by his
brother Aadesh Sharma, whereas , paper 18C reveals his
brother is the employee in the said workshop, not only his in
the workshop, which is being run in the name of M/S SSD
Motors, the mobile number of the revisionist is also reflected
from the sign board. Now, at this juncture, the relevant
extract of the order dated 09.06.2026 is also being extracted
herein as under:
“1. The revisionist is present in court pursuant to the
previous order when a specific question is asked from
him that how many workshops are being run in the
locality where he is running separate workshop in a
rental accommodation, he submits that he is running
only one workshop and other one is being run by his
brother Aadesh Sharma.
2. In the Trial Court proceeding in a written
statement a categorical statement has been given by
him that a plot measuring 1825 sq.ft. was purchased
only for residential purposes and neither any workshop
has been constructed over there nor is being used as a
workshop.
3. On the previous date a report was asked from
the Tehsildar, who submitted its report on 06.01.2026.
The relevant extract of the report is being reproduced
5
UKHC010177972025
2025:UHC:9993
herein as under:
Þ1- vkj&77-f'kofkyduxj Hksy gfj}kj ij eSllZ Jh f'ku nso eksVlZ uked
odZ'k‚i Jh v'kksd 'kekZ }kjk lapfkyr dh tk jgh gSA mDr QeZ dk
thå,låVhå jftLVªs”ku çek.k i= ¼jftLVªs”ku laå 05 BNMPS7648EIZI ½ Jh
v'kksd 'kekZ ds uke mDr irs ij iath—r gSA ¼LFkyh; QkVksxz‚Q ,oa
thå,låVhå jftLVªs”ku çek.k&i= dh Nk;kizfr lyaXUk gSA½
2-foØ; i= fnukad 24-11-2021 ds ek?;e ls foØsrk Jhfer jsuw xks;y iRuh
Jh fnus'k dqekj fuå ekSå dksVjkokn Tokykiqj }kkjk dzsrk Jhfer js[kk 'kekZ
iRuh egsUnz “kekZ fuå ekSå pkdyku Tokykiqj dks ,d vkoklh; IykV ftldk
{kså 1825 oxZQqV gS [kljk laå 372 fVgjh foLFkkfir {ks= okMZ uaå5 esa fodz;
dh xbZ gSA mDr IykkV ij eSllZ ,lå,låMhå eksVlZ uke Lis;j ikVZl 'k‚i
lapfkyr gS ftldk thå,låVhå jftLVªs”ku ¼laå
05AYRPA0348L1ZD ½ Jh vkns'k 'kekZ ds uke vfadr gSA ¼fodz; i= fnå
24-11-21 dh lR;kfir Nk;kfçr] LFkyh; QksVksxz‚Q o thå,låVhå jftLVªs”ku
çek.k&i= dh Nk;kfçr layXu gSA½
3- D;w&20 f'kofkyd uxj chå,påbZå,yå gfj}kj ij eSllZ dkj fMVsfyax
uked odZ'k‚i lapfkyr gS] ftldk lapkyd vk'kh"k 'kekZ iq= egsUnz 'kekZ
}kkjk dksbZ jftLVªs”ku @fdjk;kukek çLrqr ugh fd;k x;k] ekSds ij Jh
v'kksd 'kekZ }kjk vius c;ku es mDr QeZ NksVs HkkbZ Jh vk'kh"k 'kekZ }kjk
lapfkyr gksuk crk;k x;kA ¼LFkyh; QksVksxz‚Q o Jh v'kksd 'kekZ ds c;ku
ewy #i esa layXu gSA½ß
4. As it appears from this report the plot measuring
1825 sq.ft., which was purchased for residential
purposes a motor workshop in the name of M/s S.S.D.
Motors is being run, which is in the name of Aadesh
Sharma, the brother of the revisionist. The
photographs is also enclosed along with this report.
5. Mr. Nikhil Singhal placed before this court one of
the document i.e. Paper No. 18C/2, wherein, the
brother of the revisionist Aadesh Sharma is shown as
an employee in Shri S.S.D. Motors
6. It appears that the revisionist is making a false
statement by giving impression that the S.S.D. Motors
workshop is being run by his brother Aadesh Sharma,
whereas Paper No. 8C/2 reveals that his brother is
working as an employee in this motor workshop. Not
only this, written statement filed in the Trial Court also
reveals that misleading statement has been given that
Plot measuring 1825 sq.ft. was purchased only for
residential purposes though as per the report of
Tehsildar it is being used for commercial purposes.
Giving a false statement amounts to perjury with the
court. The revisionist, who is present in court, is
directed to file his response why he may not be
prosecuted for giving a false statement in court within
48 hours.”
11. Now, filing of the frequent applications by the
revisionist as well as by the respondent it reveals that after
disposal of the revision the parties are unnecessarily wasting
time of the court by filing frequent applications raising
disputed question of the fact again and again though this
court is of the firm opinion that the revisionist has also not
approached with clean hands and he is not fair with the court
and he suppressed about two alternative commercial
6
UKHC010177972025
2025:UHC:9993
premises, wherein, the two workshops are being run by him,
still want to retain the shop in question which is under his
tenancy.
12. Therefore, in such an eventuality, when both the
parties are raising the disputed question of fact though the
revision was already disposed of finally, this court has no
option except to recall the initial order dated 12.11.2025.
13. Accordingly, the initial order dated 12.11.2025 is
recalled and the matter is released and to be listed before
the another Bench. ”
7. The above developments that took place pending
the present civil revision are narrated, as counsel for the
revisionist / defendant, apart from making submission on the
merits of the impugned order under challenge, has also raised
an issue as to whether a consented order can be recalled
without withdrawal of consent by either party.
8. Learned counsel for revisionist/ defendant assailing
the impugned order has made the following submissions:
1) The suit was filed after the enactment of
Uttarakhand Tenancy Act, 2021, and the jurisdiction
of the Civil Court was barred under Section 40(1) of
the Act, as such, the suit was not maintainable
before the Civil Court.
2) The observation made in the impunged order
that the suit / proceedings were pending prior to
enactment of Uttarakhand Tenancy Act, 2021 is
factually incorrect as the suit was filed in the year
2024.
7
UKHC010177972025
2025:UHC:9993
3) An identical question of law about jurisdiction of
Small Cause Court and Rent Court, as constituted
under the Uttarakhand Tenancy Act, 2021, is
pending adjudication before the Court in other Civil
Revision and Misc. Writ Petition and there is interim
order operating in the said case.
4) The order impugned was passed overlooking the
provisions of Section 22, 40 and 47 of the Act of
2021.
9. In the written submission filed by revisionist/
defendant in paragraph no.17 following issues were raised:
“(i) Whether a consented order can be recalled without the
withdrawal of consent by either party.
(ii) Whether the Jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred after the
enactment of Uttarakhand rent Control Act 2021 as provided
in section 40(1) of the Act.
(iii) Whether the State Rent Control Act stood repealed after
the enactment of Uttarakhand Tenancy Act 2021, and such
repeal includes section 15(4) of U.P Amendment in Provincial
Small Cause Courts Act 1887.
(iv) Whether section 4(6) of Chapter II of Uttarakhand
Tenancy Act 2021 bars the jurisdiction of the Act in absence
of Tenancy Agreement pre or post enactment and is against
the section 3 of the Act. ”
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/
plaintiff made the following submissions:
1) For deciding an application under Order 7 Rule
11 CPC, the contents of the plaint are to be only
8
UKHC010177972025
2025:UHC:9993
seen and the submissions made in the written
statement are not to be considered. Moreover, in the
plaint a specific averment was made that the
Uttarakhand Tenancy Act, 2021 is not applicable and
the cause of action to institute the suit befor the
Civil Court was properly disclosed in the plaint.
2) Admittedly, there was no written rent agreement
between the parties and after enforcement of the
Act of 2021 no information in respect of any tenancy
agreement was provided to the Rent Authority as
defined under the Act, as such, as per Section 4(6)
of the Tenancy Act, 2021, the landlord/tenant was
not entitled to claim any relief under the Act of
2021.
3) The question about the applicability of
Uttarakhand Tenancy Act, 2021 in absence of any
written agreement and its information to the Rent
Authority was considered and finally decided by the
Court in the case of Shri Shravan Kumar Vs. Smt.
Sarita Gupta (Civil Revision No.11 of 2026) and
Sunil Kumar Kapoor Vs. Shivendra Narain Saklani
and others (Civil Revision No.132 of 2026) , as such,
the reliance placed by counsel for the revisionist/
defendant on interim order is misplaced.
9
UKHC010177972025
2025:UHC:9993
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
12. This Court is of the considered view that the
developments that took place after filing of the present
revision are not the subject matter of the order impugned
whereby application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was
rejected.
13. The fact remains that order of recall has become
final in absence of any challenge thrown to it by the
revisionist/ defendant. This Court, thus, refrains from
commenting on the issue raised by revisionist/ defendant with
regard to the question as to whether a consented order could
have been recalled.
14. The moot question which falls for consideration
before this Court is that as to whether the suit filed by
respondent / plaintiff was barred under the provisions of the
Uttarakhand Tenancy Act, 2021?
15. The facts, which are not in dispute in the present
case, are that the suit was filed in the year 2014 i.e. after
commencement of the Uttarakhand Tenancy Act, 2021. Thus,
finding recorded by the learned Trial Court that the
proceedings were pending before commencement of Act of
2021 are not correct. However, the Court cannot ignore the
10
UKHC010177972025
2025:UHC:9993
fact that, admittedly, there was no written agreement
between the parties and, thus, no information as required
under Section 4 of the Act of 2021 was given to the Rent
Authority. Section 4 of the Uttarakhand Tenancy Act, 2021
reads as hereunder:
“ Tenancy agreement —4.(1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in
force, no person shall, after the commencement of this Act,
let or take on rent any premises except by an agreement in
writing, which shall be informed to the Rent Authority by the
landlord and tenant jointly, in the form specified in the First
Schedule within a period of two months from the date of
tenancy agreement.
(2) Where the landlord and the tenant fail to jointly inform
the execution of the tenancy agreement referred to in sub-
section (1), the landlord and tenant shall separately Inform
the execution of tenancy agreement to the Rent Authority
within a period of one month from the date of expiry of the
period specified in sub-section (1).
(3) The Rent Authority shall, within three months from the
date of Its appointment, put in place a digital platform in the
local vemacular language or the language of the State/Union
territory for enabling submissions of document in such form
and manner as may be prescribed.
(4) The Rent Authority shall, after receiving information
about the execution of tenancy agreement along with the
documents specified in the First Schedule,—
(a) provide a unique identification number to the
partles;and
(b) upload details of the tenancy agreement on its
website in local vernacular language or the language of
the State/Union territory,
within seven working days from the date of receipt of
such information, in such manner along with such documents
as it may deem fit.
(5) The terms of authorisation of the property manager, if
any, by the landiord to deal with the tenant shall be such as
agreed to by the landlord and tenant in that behalf in the
tenancy agreement.
(6) The Information provided under sub-section (1) and
sub-section (2) shall be conclusive proof of the facts relating
to tenancy and matters connected therewith, and in the
absence of any statement of information, the landlord and
the tenant shall not be entitled to any relief under the
provisions of this Act.”
11
UKHC010177972025
2025:UHC:9993
16. Thus, under the Uttarakhand Tenancy Act, 2021,
there is a specific bar as stipulated in Section 4(6), which
provides that in absence of any statement of information to
the Rent Authority / Comptent Authority the landlord and the
tenant shall not be entitled to any relief under the Act.
17. The aforesaid provisions were considered by the
Court in Civil Revision No.132 of 2016 and Civil Revision
No.11 of 2026 and the position of law, as determined by this
Court in the said judgments, make it clear that in absence of
any written agreement between the parties and the
information being given to the Rent Authority the proceedings
under the Uttarakhand Tenancy Act, 2021 are not maintable.
18. Learned counsel for the revisionist/ defendant was
not in a position to show that any written rent agreement was
reached between the parties and whether any information was
given to the Rent Authority/ Competent Authority as provided
under the Act.
19. A perusal of the written statement filed by
revisionist/ defedant before the Trial Court and the averments
made in the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC also
does not disclose the fact as to whether any written rent
agreement was reached between the parites after
commencement of the Act and as to whether any information
12
UKHC010177972025
2025:UHC:9993
was provided to the Rent Authority / Competent Authority.
The contentions raised by learned counsel for the revisionist/
defendant towards the bar imposed in the Act of 2021 towards
maintainability of suit before the Civil Court is bereft of any
merit as Section 4 of the Act of 2021 starts with a non
obstante clause and in case of non-compliance of the
requirements of Section 4(1) & (2) the revisionist was not
entitled to any relief under the provisions of the Act of 2021.
20. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Revision
No.132/2016, “ Sunil Kumar Kapoor Vs. Shivendra Narain
Saklani and Others ” considered the said aspect and in
paragraph nos.10 and 11 held as under:
“ 10 . After taking into consideration the provisions of Sub
Sections 1 & 2 of Section 4 of the Tenancy Act, the learned
Judge, SCC/District Judge, Dehradun has considered that
there is a mandatory requirement for any tenancy created
after the commencement of the Act to be in writing and the
same to be intimated to the rent control authority. The
provisions cast a duty upon both, jointly upon the tenant and
the landlord and also provide a mechanism for separate
intimation in case of noncooperation. The learned Judge,
SCC/District Judge, Dehradun has also considered provisions
of Sub Section 6 of Section 4 of the Uttarakhand Tenancy
Act, 2021, that it creates specific consequence for non-
compliance of the requirements of sub-sections (1) & (2). It
stipulates that in the absence of such intimation to the Rent
Authority, neither the landlord nor the tenant shall be
entitled to any relief under the provisions of the Act.
11. Learned Judge, SCC/ District Judge, Dehradun has also
considered that the consequence of such a statutory bar is
not that the aggrieved party is left remediless. If a special
statute such as the Act of 2021, closes its doors to a litigant
due to non-compliance with a procedural formality, the
jurisdiction of the general civil courts is not automatically
ousted. A similar principle was enunciated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Nutan Kumar
vs. 2nd Additional District Judge, reported in AIR 2002 SC
3456.”
13
UKHC010177972025
2025:UHC:9993
21. This Court is in agreement with the view taken by
the Co-ordinate Bench that if a special statute such as the Act
of 2021 closes its doors to a litigant due to non-compliance of
statutory formality the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not
ousted. Thus, in view of non-compliance of the provisions of
Section 4 of the Act of 2021 the suit was only maintainable
before the Civil Court and the Rent Court has no jurisdiction to
hear the case and application filed by revisionist/ defendant
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was, as such, rightly rejected by
the learned Trial Court.
22. Accordingly, the revision fails and the same is
dismissed.
23. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications,
if any pending, shall stand closed.
___________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt:03.11.2026
Sukhbant
14