IMPORTANT POINT
Appeal is continuance of proceedings and any developments which may take place during pendency of appeal or suit, going to root of case, can always be taken notice of to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The appellant-landlord has filed the present appeal impugning the judgment of the High Court¹[High Court of Judicature at Allahabad] in Second Appeal No.1623 of 1992²[Dated 15.02.2024]. Vide aforesaid judgment, the appeal preferred by the appellant was partially accepted while setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court³[Court of Special Judge C Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr]. However, the High Court passed an order under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC⁴[Hereinafter referred to as the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908] directing return of plaint to the appellant for presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The Trial Court⁵[Court of Additional Civil Judge, Bulandshahr] had decreed the suit filed by the appellant for possession and recovery of rent. An appeal was preferred by the respondent nos.1 to 3 - tenants. The First Appellate Court had reversed the findings while holding that the Trial Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the lis because the land in question is agricultural.

2. Brief facts of the case as available on record are that a tenancy agreement was entered into between the parties on 31.07.1970, vide which portion of land was taken on rent by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.1 to 3 @ Rs.150/- per month. The land was taken for the purpose of setting up of Indian Oil petrol pump by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.1 to 3. It was mentioned in the tenancy agreement that on failure by the tenant to pay rent regularly, the appellant shall have the right to evict him and recover the arrears of rent. The aforesaid tenancy agreement was duly registered on 31.07.1970.

3. As the predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.1 to 3 failed to pay rent regularly, a suit for eviction was filed by the appellant in the year 1974. In the aforesaid suit, an application was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.1 to 3 contending that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction. It was claimed that land in question is agricultural. Hence, only the Revenue Court will have jurisdiction to deal with the issue. The aforesaid application was rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 14.08.1976 as the land in question, since the very beginning, was let out for non-agricultural purpose for setting up of a petrol pump, hence, Civil Court will have jurisdiction. The order was not challenged by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.1 to 3.

4. Finally, after trial, the suit for possession and arrears of rent filed by the appellant, was decreed vide judgment dated 30.11.1981. Aggrieved against the same, both the parties preferred appeals before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, referring to various provisions of the UPZALR Act⁶[The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950], opined that the land in question was not declared non-agricultural in terms of Section 143 of the UPZALR Act. Hence, the Civil Court will not have jurisdiction. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court was set aside. In the appeal preferred by the appellant, the claim was for increase of mesne profit. However, the same was dismissed.

5. Against the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the appellant preferred second appeal before the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal in part. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court was set aside and substituted by an order, under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC, directing return of the plaint to the appellant for presentation before the appropriate forum. The High Court opined that there being no declaration under Section 143 of the UPZALR Act for the land in question to be non-agricultural, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred.

6. The aforesaid judgment is impugned before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that from the very beginning, the land in question was let out to the predecessor-in- interest of respondent nos.1 to 3, way back in the year 1970,