JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for respondent.

2. Present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

“i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 05.04.2023 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supply)/Rent Authority, Agra as well as impugned order dated 06.07.2022 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supply)/Rent Authority, Agra.

ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 696/2022, Smt. Kanchan Kumar Jain vs. Jagmohan Agrawal under section 10(1) of U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021.”

3. Learned counsel for petitioner-defendant submitted that premises in question is a Nazul/Lease land given by the State Government/Nagar Nigam, therefore, under the exception of Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act No. 16 of 2021’), Act No. 16 of 2021 would not be applicable in this case. Though this objection was not taken against the application filed by respondent-plaintiff for fixation of interim rent, but petitioner-defendant has raised the same while filing recall application and without considering the same, recall application has been rejected under the of provisions of Section 34(8) of Act No. 16 of 2021. He firmly submitted that once Act No. 16 of 2021 is not applicable, all proceedings under the provision of Act No. 16 of 2021 are void ab-initio. In the present case, remedy before the landlord is to file SCC Suit under the Provisions of Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887(hereinafter, referred to as, ‘Act of 1887’).

4. It is next submitted that from the day one, the case of petitioner is that he is never a tenant of the shop in question and in fact his father was the tenant. After his death, he has not succeeded his father’s business and as per Section 6(3) of Act No. 16 of 2021, he is not the tenant and tenancy devolves for remaining period to the person/family member, who had succeeded the business of deceased-tenant. Petitioner-defendant has taken this specific ground in his objection, but rejecting the same, rent application was decided vide impunged order dated 06.07.2022 in terms of Section 6(2) of Act No. 16 of 2021, which is for the purpose of residential tenancy, where the right of tenancy shall devolve for the remaining period to his successors, therefore, treating the petitioner-defendant as tenant, order is bad in light of Section 6(3) of Act No. 16 of 2021.

5. He further submitted that Section 4 of Act No. 16 of 2021 provides for tenancy agreement and in case of only tenancy agreement, any proceeding may be initiated under Section 4 of Act No. 16 of 2021. Tenancy is required to be registered by submitting joint application or individual application by the landlord or the tenant and after that, Rent Authority shall provide a Unique Identification Number. In the present case, tenancy agreement has never been registered either jointly or separately and no Unique Identification Number has been allotted, therefore, no proceeding can be initiated under Section 4 of Act No. 16 of 2021.

6. It is further submitted that Section 10 of Act No. 16 of 2021 provides for Rent Authority to determine the revised rent in case of any dispute between the landlord and the tenant and for that purpose, it is required on the part of Rent Authority to determine the rent after application of mind, but in present case, after deducting certain amount, rent as proposed has been approved without application of mind and any exercise to determine the rent.

7. Lastly, it is submitted that in light of facts so argued here, neither, proceeding is maintainable under the law nor on the facts. Even in case assuming that the Act No. 16 of 2021 is