JUDGMENT

The present Civil Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, has been preferred against the order dated 27.01.2026, passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court/1st Additional District Judge, Dehradun, in SCC Case No. 14 of 2024, Sarita Gupta vs. Shravan Kumar Gupta. By the said order dated 27.01.2026, the learned Trial Court rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., filed by the defendant/revisionist for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred under Section 40 of the Uttarakhand Tenancy Act, 2021.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent had filed a suit SCC Case No. 14 of 2024 for arrears of rent, ejectment and mesne profit on the ground that the plaintiff had purchased the said property/three shops through two sale-deeds dated 29.03.2022 and the defendant/revisionist had been in occupation of one shop of the said property at a monthly rent of Rs. 2500/- per month; that the defendant has not paid the monthly rent since 2018; that the property is in dilapidated condition and the plaintiff had received a notice dated 17.05.2022 from Nagar Nigam Dehradun under Section 331 (1) of the Nagar Nigam Adhiniyam, 1959 to demolish the said property; that the defendant/revisionist had neither paid the rent nor vacated the property. The defendant/revisionist filed written statement denying the plaint allegation and thereafter, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. on the ground that the Suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by the provisions of Uttarakhand Tenancy Act, 2021, which came into force from 01.01.2003 and as per Section 40 of the said Act, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

3. The plaintiff/respondent filed objection against the said application and after hearing the parties, order dated 27.01.2026 was passed by the learned Trial Court, which is challenged in the present Civil Revision.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that as per Section 40 of the Uttarakhand Tenancy Act, 2021 the suit was barred and the application filed by the revisionist was liable to be allowed. Learned counsel for the revisionist also submitted that in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Alok Gupta vs. District Judge Rent Tribunal and others, 2024 SCC Online All 648, the suit was liable to be dismissed and an application was only maintainable before the Rent Authority as per the Uttarakhand Tenancy Act, 2021, even in absence of written lease agreement when the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted between the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff however, submits that the Uttarakhand Tenancy Act, 2021, more particularly, Section 4(6) of the said Act makes a specific bar in case no written agreement is reached between the parties and the same is not filed before the Rent Authority/ Competent Authority. He further submits that the said specific bar is not mentioned in the Uttar Pradesh Tenancy Act, 2021 and, as such, the Judgment on which, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the revisionist is not applicable in the present case.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, the question which arises before the Court is that, as to whether the suit filed by the plaintiff before the Civil Court was barred as per Section 40 of the Uttarakhand Tenancy Act, 2021, when there was no written agreement between the parties and when the same was not submitted before the Rent Authority/competent authority.

6. Section 4 of the Uttarakhand Tenancy Act, 2021, reads as under:—

“4(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, no person shall, after the commencement of this Act, let or take on rent any premises except by an agreement in writing, which shall be informed to the Rent Authority by the landlord and tenant jointly, in the form specified in the First Schedul