Civil Court Jurisdiction in Tenancy Matters is Barred Where U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 Applies

The respondent-landlords filed an SCC suit (No. 03 of 2025) for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction against the revisionist-tenants

In the plaint, the landlords admitted the landlord-tenant relationship and acknowledged that the premises were governed by the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021)

They further claimed enhanced rent based on Sections 4 and 9 of the said Act

The tenants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, arguing the suit was barred by Section 38(1) of the Act, 2021, which ousts the jurisdiction of civil courts

The District Judge, Hathras, rejected this application on 19.03.2026, leading to the present revision

1. Whether the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court (Civil Court) is expressly barred by Section 38(1) of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 when the landlord-tenant relationship and the applicability of the Act are admitted in the plaint

2. Whether a plaint is liable for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC if the pleadings themselves invoke a statutory framework that excludes civil court jurisdiction

Section 38(1) of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, which provides for the express ouster of civil court jurisdiction in matters governed by the Act

Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, a plaint must be rejected if it appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law

Akhilesh Kumar v. Sanjay Sahgal (2026), which held that the Act of 2021 is a complete code creating a specialized adjudicatory mechanism (the Rent Authority), and the absence of a written agreement does not restore civil court jurisdiction if the relationship is admitted

The court reasoned that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it must look strictly at the averments in the plaint

In this case, the landlords explicitly pleaded that the Act of 2021 applied to the premises and even calculated arrears based on Section 9 of the Act

The court found that since the landlord-tenant relationship was undisputed and the premises fell under Section 1(3) of the Act, the statutory bar in Section 38(1) was automatically triggered

The High Court observed that the lower court failed to recognize that the SCC court is a "civil court" within the meaning of the Act and thus lacked competence to entertain the dispute

The court emphasized that clever drafting cannot bypass a statutory bar when the jurisdictional facts (admitted tenancy under the 2021 Act) are clearly present

The SCC Revision was allowed, and the order dated 19.03.2026 passed by the District Judge, Hathras, was set aside. The application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was allowed, and the plaint in SCC Case No. 03 of 2025 was rejected. The respondents were granted liberty to pursue remedies before the competent Rent Authority under the Act of 2021.