AFR Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:11676 Court No. - 4 Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 95 of 2023 Revisionist :- Sri Raman Arora Opposite Party :- Susheel Kumar (Deceased) And 7 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Mahender,Mohan Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Vijay Prakash Mishra Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

1. Heard Shri Mohan Srivastava, learned Advocate appearing for revision applicant and Shri Vijay Prakash Mishra, learned Advocate appearing for tenant respondent.

2. By means of this revision application, revision applicant has questioned the order passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 15, Bulandshahar dated 15.07.2023 whereby it has upheld the maintainability of eviction suit instituted by the landlord before the Judge Small Causes taking a legal view of the enforcement of the Act, namely, Act No. 16 of 2021, namely the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 with effect from the date of its publication in the gazette on 24.08.2021. Questioning the maintainability of suit before the Judge Small Causes Court, the tenant had taken the objection that the ordinance that had later on got converted into an enactment was enforced on 11.01.2021 and, therefore, the Act would be taken to have commenced with effect from 11.01.2021 in view of sub-section 4 of Section-1 of the U.P.

Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021.

3. Learned Advocate appearing for tenant/ revision applicant has argued that statute enacted by competent legislature would prevail upon ordinance, government order and executive notifications including notification of the act in Gazette and, therefore, once the Act itself provided for its enforcement vide Section 1 (4), with effect from 11.01.2021, the court took an erroneous view in law that its enforcement would be taken to be with effect from date of its publication in the official gazette.

4. Per contra, it is argued by learned Advocate appearing for landlord respondent that even if the Act is taken to have come into force with effect from 11.01.2021, in view of the fact that there was no written agreement of lease in respect of demised premises between the parties, the suit before the Judge Small Causes under the Provincial Small Causes Act, 1887 was absolutely maintainable in view of the judgment of this Court in the matter of Amit Gupta v. Gulab Chandra Kanodia and Shri Mewak Ram and Keshav Dev Khemka Samaj Sewa Sadam Samiti v. Kuldeep Chand Malik MANU/UP/1559/2023 SCC Revision No. 158 of 2022 and SCC Revision Defective No. 48 of 2022 decided on 15.05.2023, which still holds the field. He argues that the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972 having the Presidential assent, the maintainability of suit in respect of unwritten tenancy agreements not covered by the first schedule of the Act No. 16 of 2021 before the Judge Small Causes, cannot be questioned only on the premise that tenancy agreements in writing or information thereof as required under various sub-Sections of Section 4 to the rent authority is not sine qua non for maintaining an application under Section 21 (2) of the new Act. He has taken the Court to the relevant provisions as contained under Section 38 (2) of the new Act that specifically confers jurisdiction on the rent authority to try tenancy disputes only in the matter of tenancy agreement that are submitted to it as per prescribed format specified in first Schedule. Section 38 (2) of the new Act is reproduced hereunder:

"(2) The jurisdiction of the Rent Authority shall be limited to tenancy agreement submitted to it as specified in the First Schedule and shall not extend to the question of title or ownership of premises."

5. Learned Advocate appearing for respondent submits that reading down the provisions as contained under various sub- sections of Section 4 along with sub-section 2 of Section 38, would definitely lead a prudent mind to conclude that written agreement as contemplated under the new Act is necessary for invoking the provisions under Section 21 (2