Post-2021 tenancy suits must be filed under the Act of 2021, regardless of prior contractual termination.

The respondent (landlord) instituted SCC Suit No. 3 of 2021 on 20.08.2021 seeking eviction and recovery of rent for two commercial shops in Hapur.

The landlord had previously served a notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (TPA) on 15.07.2021.

The revisionists (tenants) filed Application 51C under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Application 87C, challenging the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes following the enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 ("Act, 2021").

The trial court rejected both applications, holding that because the tenancy was determined under the TPA before the suit was filed, the Court of Small Causes retained jurisdiction.

1. Whether a suit for eviction instituted after the enforcement of the Act, 2021 can be entertained by the Court of Small Causes if the tenancy was determined by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act prior to the suit's institution.

2. Whether the lack of a written tenancy agreement as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act, 2021 denudes the Rent Authority of jurisdiction.

Section 38(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, which contains a non-obstante clause expressly barring the jurisdiction of civil courts over disputes governed by the Act.

The precedent Akhilesh Kumar v. Sanjay Sahgal [2026 (7) ADJ 205], which settled that the date of institution of the suit, not the date of the cause of action, determines the applicable forum.

Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, noting it governs the substantive determination of leases but does not confer or preserve the jurisdiction of any specific adjudicatory forum.

The Court reasoned that jurisdiction is determined by the law in force on the date of the suit's institution (20.08.2021), and since the Act, 2021 was already in force, the exclusive adjudicatory mechanism of the Rent Authority was triggered.

The High Court found the trial court’s reasoning—that determination of tenancy under the TPA preserved the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes—to be a manifest misconception of law.

The Court clarified that Section 38(1) of the Act, 2021 overrides the general jurisdiction of Civil Courts.

The service of a notice under Section 106 TPA merely creates a cause of action; it cannot be used to circumvent the legislative mandate of a special, self-contained enactment like the Act, 2021.

The absence of a written tenancy agreement under Section 4 does not exclude the Act’s applicability if a landlord-tenant relationship exists.

The High Court allowed the revisions and set aside the orders dated 20.05.2025 and 02.04.2026 insofar as they held the suit maintainable before the Court of Small Causes.

Liberty was granted to the landlord to institute fresh proceedings before the competent authority under the Act, 2021.

The court upheld the rejection of the Order VII Rule 11 application regarding the "cause of action" against legal representatives, noting they represent the estate of the deceased.