Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:146544

AFR

Court No. - 4

Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 62 of 2023

Revisionist :- Ratan Lal Jaiswal

Opposite Party :- Smt. Sunita Devi

Counsel for Revisionist :- Suresh Srivastava,Abhishek,Jyoti

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashvanee Kumar Srivastav,Vineet Kumar

Singh,Vishal Pandey

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist and Mr. Vineet Kumar Singh,

learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party.

2. The present SCC Revision has been filed by the revisionist, under section 25 of

the Small Causes Court Act, 1887, challenging the judgment and order dated

21.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional District & Session Judge, F.T.C.-2

(under Section 14 of the Finance Commissioner), Gorakhpur in SCC Suit No. 2 of

2021 (Sunita Devi Vs. Ratan Lal Jaiswal).

3. The facts as stated in the affidavit are that the plaintiff/Sunita Devi has instituted

SCC Suit No. 2 of 2021, in the Court of Judge Small Causes Court Gorakhpur on

19.1.2021, the plaint of the said suit is annexed as annexure-1 to the affidavit. As

per the plaint averment, a registered rent agreement dated 11.6.2015 was executed

between the plaintiff/Sunita Devi and Ratan Lal/defendant for letting out the shop,

measuring 10x14 i.e. 140 square feet. The boundaries of the shop have been

mentioned in the plaint. As per the registered rent agreement, the monthly rent of

the shop was Rs. 6000/-. The term of the rent agreement was from 1.7.2015 to

30.6.2020.

4. It is further stated in the plaint that the tenant/revisionist was in arrears of rent

from 1.1.2020 to 30.6.2020. After expiry of term of the rent agreement, the

defendant/revisionist has not vacated the shop in dispute, accordingly, a notice

dated 17.9.2020 was given, terminating the tenancy and demanding arrears of rent.

The suit was instituted by the plaintiff- opposite party for recovery of arrears of

rent, damages for use and occupation as well as possession of the shop.

5. The defendant/revisionist has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on

8.7.2022, which was numbered as paper No. 25Ga, on the ground that the suit filed

by the plaintiff-opposite party is not maintainable, in the Court of Judge Small

Causes Court, in view of the provisions contained in Uttar Pradesh Regulation of

Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2021").

6. An objection was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party on 22.7.2022, stating

therein that in view of section 46 of the Act of 2021, all the cases and proceedings

pending under the Act of 1972 at the commencement of Act of 2021 shall be

continued to be enforced. Further objection has been raised that as per section 6 of

the General Clauses Act, 1897, the second ordinance of 2021 was approved by the

State Cabinet on 5.4.2021, replacing the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 and since

the suit in question has been filed on 19.1.2021, hence the same is to be continued

by the Judge Small Causes and the provision of Act of 2021 are not applicable.

7. The trial Court relying upon section 16 of the Provincial Small Causes Court

Act, 1887, held that the suit has been filed under the provisions of Provincial Small

Causes Court Act, 1887, as such, the suit is maintainable before the Judge Small

Causes Court and rejected the application filed by the defendant/revisionist under

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. by the impugned order.

8. It is argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that all the suits relating to

the tenancy are governed under the provisions of Act of 2021 and jurisdiction of

Judge Small Causes is also barred in view of the provisions contained in Act of

2021. The learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that the rent of

accommodation was Rs. 6000/- per month and tenancy was created through

registered rent deed. As the rent was Rs. 6000/- per month, the provisions contained

in U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 will not apply. He further argued that the suit was n