Back
2025 Supreme(All) 3357
HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE AT ALLAHABAD
NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
Alok Kumar Jain – Petitioner
Versus
Indra Bhushan Sawhney – Respondent
Matters Under Article 227 No. 4383 of 2024
Decided On : 04-11-2025
For the Petitioner: Sudeep Harkauli
For the Respondents: Balwinder Singh Suri, C.S.C., Mukesh Kumar Pandey.
Court clarified the application of court fees under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, emphasizing distinctions between fees for recovery and other applications.
Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 - Section 10(1) & 39 - Court Fees Act, 1870 - Court fees for applications before Rent Authority - Section 39(3) specifies court fees shall be the same as for interlocutory applications in a Civil Court for applications other than for recovery of possession - Court clarified distinctions in calculating court fees based on specific application types under the Act No. 16 of 2021. (Paras 2, 4, 39, 42)
(B) Execution of orders - Court emphasized the need for timely adjudication of cases by Rent Authority as mandated by the Act, observing adherence to prescribed timelines is obligatory. (Paras 7, 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner filed for expedited execution of a rent order due to delays in compliance following a dispute under Act No. 16 of 2021, after the rent was determined and fees assessed.
Findings of Court:
Court determined that the respondent's calculation of court fees was incorrect and mandated a reevaluation in accordance with legislative provisions.
Issues: The court addressed whether the petitioner must pay court fees under specific sections of the Act No. 16 of 2021, including distinctions between types of applications.
Ratio Decidendi: Court rules that under Section 39 of Act No. 16 of 2021, calculations should distinguish between recoveries of possession and other tenant-related application costs, reaffirming the overriding effect of Act No. 16.
Result: Petition allowed.
Key Points: - The Court clarified that under Section 39(2) of the Act, only applications for recovery of possession are treated as suits between landlord and tenant for court fee computation purposes (!) (!) . - For all other applications, such as those under Section 10 for determining revised rent, court fees must be the same as an interlocutory application in a Civil Court under Section 39(3) of the Act (!) (!) . - The Court held that the calculation of court fees by the Rent Authority using the enhanced rate for a non-possession recovery application was incorrect and remitted the matter for recalculation (!) . - The Rent Authority was directed to decide the execution case within 30 days as mandated by Section 36(3) of the Act (!) . - The Rent Authority and Rent Tribunal are directed to dispose of all pending cases strictly within the time limits prescribed by the Act (!) . - Section 42 of the Act provides an overriding effect, meaning its provisions on court fees prevail over inconsistent provisions in the Court Fees Act, 1870 (!) . - The application for revised rent under Section 10 does not involve recovery of possession and thus falls under the lower court fee category (!) (!) . - The Court emphasized that the insertion of Sections 39(2) and 39(3) was purposeful to distinguish between different types of tenancy applications (!) .
What are the distinctions in court fee calculations between applications for recovery of possession and other tenant-related applications under Section 39 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021?
What is the correct method for computing court fees for an application filed under Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 regarding revised rent determination?
What are the rights of the Rent Authority regarding the time-bound disposal of execution cases under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. need for expedient decisions by rent authority as required by law. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner's actions based on previously determined debts and requests for recalculation. (Para 3 , 6 , 18 , 20) |
| 3. court mandated timely adjudication under existing regulations. (Para 7 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. clarifications distinguishing court fees based on application type. (Para 12 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
1. Heard Sri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri I.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondent.
2. Present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
"(i) To direct the court below to decide the Execution Case No. 127 of 2023 within a time bound period of 30 days.
(ii) To direct the Rent Authority, Agra to strictly comply with the timelines specified in the Act in the cases pending before it."
3. Brief facts of the case are that earlier mother of petitioner (now deceased) has filed Case No. 696 of 2022 under Section 10(1) of Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act No. 16 of 2021'), which was decreed in favour of petitioner vide order dated 22.07.2022. As the order was not complied with, therefore, petitioner has filed Execution Case No. 127 of 2023 for execution of order, which is pending since long without any positive order for execution. At this stage, petitioner has filed present petition to expedite the execution case. During the pendency of this petition, this Court has passed several orders. Ultimately execution case has proceeded and further vide order dated 28.05.2024, Executing Court has determined the amount of rent i.e. Rs. 62,60,720/- and further vide order dated 29.05.2024 directed the applicant/petitioner to deposit the court fee of Rs. 4,69,983/-. At this stage, petitioner has filed amendment application dated 30.05.2024 for certain amendments along with prayer. This Court vide order dated 31.05.2024 allowed the amendment application. In compliance of order, amendment was carried out and amended prayer is being quoted below:-
"(i)(a). Direct the respondent no. 2 to charge court fee as per section 39(3) of the Act, & not at the arbitrary enhanced rate as mentioned in the order dated 28.05.2024 and 29.05.2024"
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that Section 39 of Act No. 16 of 2021 provides for court fees. Section 39 (1) of Act No. 16 of 2021 clearly provides that The Court-fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1870') shall apply in respect of applications or appeals presented before the Rent Authority or Rent Tribunal as the case may be. Section 39 (2) of Act No. 16 of 2021 further clarifies that for the purpose of computation of court fees, application for recovery of possession made to the Rent Authority and memorandum of appeal presented before the Rent Tribunal shall be deemed to be suit between the landlord and tenant. He further submitted that Section 39 (3) of Act No. 16 of 2021 further clarifies that other applications presented before the Rent Authority, for that court fees shall be same as that of an interlocutory application presented in a Civil Court.
5. He firmly pointed out that in present controversy, application was filed before the Rent Authority under Section 10 of Act No. 16 of 2021 to determine the revise rent as there was dispute and it has nothing to do with the recovery of possession, therefore, in execution of order passed upon this application, court fees shall be governed by the provisions of Section 39 (3) of Act No. 16 of 2021. He next submitted that court fees for the first category i.e. for recovery of possession may be charged as per Section 7 (xi- b) of the Act, 1870 whereas for the second category i.e. for all other applications, it may be charged under Schedule-II Item No. 1-b of the Act, 1870. He also pointed out that recovery of possession is provided in proviso to Section 4(3), Section 20(2) and Section 27 Act No. 16 of 2021 whereas for
