The civil court retains jurisdiction over injunction suits concerning leased non-agricultural lands, and under applicable statutes, a plaint cannot be rejected partially but must be considered as a whole.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

1. Heard Shri Gaurav Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.05.2025 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pilibhit in Original Suit no. 261 of 2025 (Saurabh Kumar Vs. Pooran Lal) by which an application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. has been rejected. The revision filed against the order dated 26.05.2025 has also been dismissed by the revisional court i.e. District Judge, Pilibhit by order dated 30.05.2025. The order passed by the revisional court is also under challenge in the present writ petition.

3. Brief facts of the case are that Original Suit No. 261 of 2025 was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the land which was given to the plaintiff on the basis of a lease deed. The second prayer made in the plaint was that a mandatory injunction be granted directing the defendant to accept the rent from the plaintiff and issue a receipt for the same and in case, the same is not done, the plaintiff be permitted to deposit the rent in the court. Case of the plaintiff as set up in the plaint is that the property in dispute was leased to the plaintiff vide lease deed dated 11.10.2019 and the plaintiff-respondent is in peaceful possession over the land in dispute. The defendant-petitioner started interfering with the possession of the plaintiff of which he had no right and therefore, the suit for permanent injunction was filed for restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. The averments were also made that the defendant has accepted rent till 31.12.2020 and thereafter, though, defendant received rent till 2023 but did not issue receipts. Later on, the defendant did not accept the rent for the year 2024, other pleas were also taken. The defendant in the suit moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint on ground that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was barred under Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred as 'Act of 2021') and therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected. The plaintiff-respondent filed objection to the said application. The trial court by its order dated 28.05.2025 rejected the application filed by the defendant- petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. The revision filed by the defendant-petitioner was also rejected by the order impugned dated 30.05.2025. Hence the present petition.

4. Though the initial application was filed only on the ground that the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 14 of Act of 2021 but at the stage of argument, it was also contended by defendant-petitioner before trial court that the suit was barred by Sections 94, 95 and 206 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

5. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that lease of agricultural land can be granted only for a period of fifteen years as per Section 94 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 at a time and since the lease in the present