Failure to notify tenancy under Section 4(6) does not oust civil court jurisdiction.

The respondents filed a Small Cause Court suit seeking arrears of rent and eviction from a shop in Dehradun.

The revisionist disputed the rent claim and sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, contending that Section 40 of the Uttarakhand Tenancy Act, 2021 barred the suit.

He also argued that the tenancy arose through an allotment under the former rent-control regime, with the landlord’s written no-objection, and that this satisfied the new Act’s written-consent requirement.

The Small Cause Court rejected the application, holding the suit maintainable.

The revisionist challenged that order under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.

1. Whether the suit was barred by Section 40 of the Uttarakhand Tenancy Act, 2021, and therefore liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.

2. Whether, where the parties had not informed the Rent Authority of the tenancy as required by Section 4, the Small Cause Court retained jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Section 4(1) and (2) of the Uttarakhand Tenancy Act, 2021 requires the landlord and tenant to inform the Rent Authority of a tenancy agreement, jointly or, in specified circumstances, separately.

Under Section 4(6), absent the prescribed information, the parties are not entitled to relief under that Act.

The Court treated this restriction as limiting relief under the special Act, rather than automatically extinguishing recourse to the general civil courts.

It relied on Nootan Kumar v. 2nd Additional District Judge, AIR 2002 SC 3456, and the coordinate Bench decision in Sarvan Kumar Gupta v. Sarita Gupta, Civil Revision No. 11 of 2026, decided 20 March 2026, as supporting the availability of a civil-court remedy where relief under the Tenancy Act is unavailable.

The revision was considered under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, and the rejection application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

The Court noted that neither party had informed the Rent Authority of the tenancy in the manner required by Section 4(1) and (2).

Section 4(6) therefore precluded the parties from obtaining relief under the Tenancy Act; it did not, in the Court’s view, oust the Small Cause Court’s jurisdiction.

Applying the reasoning in Sarvan Kumar Gupta, the Court held that the absence of a remedy under the special Act did not make the suit barred by law for purposes of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.

It also found no jurisdictional error in the trial court’s order.

Finding no jurisdictional error and no merit in the revision, it dismissed the civil revision and left the trial court’s order rejecting the Order VII Rule 11 application undisturbed.