JUDGMENT :

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Ms. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Prakash Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 22.05.2025 passed by the Rent Authority/A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue), Baghpat, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-tenant under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was rejected. The petitioner has also challenged the subsequent order dated 02.05.2026 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Baghpat in Civil Revision No. 46 of 2025, whereby the order passed by the Rent Authority has been affirmed.

3. Briefly stated, the respondent instituted Rent Case No. 987 of 2022 before the Rent Authority seeking eviction/release of the petitioner from the premises situated at Khasra No. 378, Village Jahangirpur Dundaheda, Tehsil Khekra, District Baghpat. It was pleaded that an area measuring 836.12 square metres, comprising a hall, tin shed, store, office and open land, had been let out to the petitioner under a rent deed dated 24.12.2020 at a monthly rent of Rs.75,000/-. According to the respondent, three months' advance rent amounting to Rs.2,25,000/- was paid at the inception of the tenancy, but no rent was thereafter paid by the petitioner. The respondent accordingly claimed to have terminated the tenancy by notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

4. The petitioner, on the other hand, has disputed the very existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. His case is that although the rent deed dated 24.12.2020 was executed, the transaction was never acted upon and possession of the premises was never delivered to him. It is, accordingly, contended that no tenancy ever came into existence and that the proceedings instituted before the Rent Authority were, therefore, not maintainable. Reliance has also been placed upon an application submitted before the Registrar seeking cancellation of the rent deed on the ground that the transaction had not been acted upon.

5. The objection raised by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. thus proceeds on the premise that the alleged non-delivery of possession pursuant to the rent deed establishes that no landlord-tenant relationship came into existence and that the rent proceedings were consequently liable to be rejected at the threshold.

6. The question which consequently arises for consideration is whether the objection raised by the petitioner can be determined within the limited scope of the jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., on the basis of the pleadings alone, or whether the plea that no landlord- tenant relationship came into existence is a disputed question requiring examination of the pleadings, material and evidence at the stage of adjudication on merits.

7. The principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. are well settled. While considering an objection under clause (a) thereof, the Court is required to read the plaint or application as a whole and determine whether, on a meaningful reading of the averments contained therein and taking them at their face value, the foundational facts constituting a cause of action have been pleaded. The enquiry is directed to the existence of a cause of action as disclosed from the pleadings and not to the ultimate merits or proof of the claim. At that stage, the Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial, test the truth of the averments, weigh the defence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact which require consideration of evidence.

8. The distinction between the disclosure of a cause of action and the proof of the facts constituting such cause of action assumes particular significance in the present matter. A cause of action comprises the material facts which are necessary for the plaintiff to establish in order to