Disputed landlord–tenant relationship cannot be adjudicated under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

The respondent-landlord instituted Rent Case No. 987 of 2022 before the Rent Authority, Baghpat, seeking eviction/release of the petitioner from premises situated at Khasra No. 378, Village Jahangirpur Dundaheda, District Baghpat. The respondent relied on a rent deed dated 24 December 2020 concerning approximately 836.12 square metres of premises, at a monthly rent of ₹75,000, and alleged payment of three months’ advance rent followed by default in payment. The tenancy was stated to have been terminated by notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

The petitioner disputed the existence of a landlord–tenant relationship. Although he admitted execution of the rent deed, he contended that it was never acted upon and that possession of the premises was never delivered to him. He accordingly argued that no tenancy came into existence and that the rent proceedings were not maintainable. He also relied on an application made before the Registrar seeking cancellation of the rent deed.

The petitioner’s application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was rejected by the Rent Authority on 22 May 2025. The revisional court affirmed that order on 2 May 2026 in Civil Revision No. 46 of 2025. The petitioner challenged both orders under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the rent proceedings were liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the rent deed was never acted upon and possession was never delivered to the petitioner?

Whether the petitioner’s plea that no landlord–tenant relationship came into existence raised a threshold defect in the respondent’s pleadings, or instead constituted a disputed question of fact requiring adjudication on merits?

Whether the orders of the Rent Authority and the revisional court disclosed any jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, perversity, or other ground warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution?

The Court applied Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, under which a plaint or application may be rejected where, on a meaningful reading of its own averments, it discloses no cause of action. The court must accept the pleaded facts at face value for this limited inquiry and cannot conduct a mini-trial, assess the truth of the pleadings, weigh the defence, or determine disputed questions of fact.

The Court relied on T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467, Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557, Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 9 SCC 366, and Neeraj Maheshwari v. Shri Narayanlal Dharamshala Trust, Kasganj, 2026 SCC OnLine All 2873, for the distinction between absence of a cause of action and failure to prove a pleaded cause of action.

Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, governed the respondent’s pleaded termination of tenancy.

The Court also applied the limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, under which interference is justified only in cases of patent jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, perversity, or failure to exercise jurisdiction.

The respondent’s rent case expressly pleaded the execution of the rent deed, identification of the premises, agreed rent, payment of advance rent, subsequent default, and termination by notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. These averments, taken at face value, disclosed the factual foundation of the eviction claim and therefore constituted a cause of action under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC.

The petitioner’s contention that possession was never delivered and that the rent deed was not implemented did not show any deficiency in the respondent’s pleadings; it disputed the truth and legal effect of the pleaded transaction.

Determining whether possession was delivered, whether the deed was acted upon, and whether a landlord–tenant relationship arose would require examination of the parties’ conduct, surrounding circumstances, documents, and evidence. Such an exercise would amount to adjudicating the defence and conducting a mini-trial, which is impermissible at the Order VII Rule 11 stage.

The application for cancellation of the rent deed before the Registrar did not conclusively establish that the tenancy never came into existence, as its evidentiary effect also required determination on the merits.

Since the subordinate courts applied the correct legal standard and committed no jurisdictional or manifest error, Article 227 interference was unwarranted.

The challenge to the orders dated 22 May 2025 and 2 May 2026 was rejected, and the petition was disposed of.

The Court expressly left open all questions concerning the existence of the tenancy, delivery of possession, legal effect of the rent deed, and evidentiary value of the Registrar application for determination by the Rent Authority on the basis of the pleadings and evidence.

The Rent Authority was directed to proceed expeditiously and endeavour to decide the matter within the statutory period contemplated by Section 33(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, subject to legal impediment and cooperation by the parties.