Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS No.

and Registrar’s order with Signatures WPMS No.1059 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The instant petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the Judge Small Cause Court/ Civil Judge Senior Division Dehradun in SCC Suit No. 05 of 2024, “Manu Rishi Garg versus Agnivesh Garg,” whereby the application moved by the petitioner, in the said suit being defendant under Order7 Rule11 of CPC, was rejected. In addition to this, the petitioner is also challenging the order dated 05.02.2025 passed in SCC Revision No.19 of 2024, whereby, the order rejecting the application moved under Order7 Rule11 CPC dated 25.10.2024 was also confirmed by dismissing the Revision.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the SCC suit filed by the respondent- petitioner is not maintainable in view of Section 33 read with Section 40 of Uttarakhand Tenancy Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as Act No.02 of 2021). 5. He also submits that this aspect that the SCC Suit filed by the plaintiff (owner of shop in question) is not maintainable has not been properly dealt with by both the Courts below. Apart from this he submits that the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court Act with respect to the property in question is barred by the provisions of the Act No.02 of 2022 and this aspect has been completely overlooked in fact by both the Courts below and as such the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. He submits that the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute by virtue of the provisions of the Act No.02 of 2022. He submits that on harmonious reading of Section 21 and 40 of the Act, it is only the rent Court established under Section 33 of the Act No.02 of 2022 that can adjudicate the dispute between the landlord and the tenant.

6. On the other side, Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, the counsel for the respondent submits that, in fact, there was no tenancy agreement with the petitioner rather the tenancy agreement was with his father, who was given shop in question for a specific purpose on monthly rent to run a clinic, Vaidh since the petitioner’s father was a . Apart from this, he submits that the petitioner was a salaried employee in District Cooperative Bank and retired from his service in the year 2012-13 and since the petitioner’s father is no more, therefore, the petitioner is under legal obligation to give the possession of the shop in-question to the respondent but he unauthorisedly occupying the shop.

7. In response to this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even after the death of the petitioner’s father, the rent at the rate of Rs.75/- per month is being paid regularly by the petitioner to the respondent-defendant, who is accepting the rent, therefore, there is a relationship of the landlord and the tenant.

8. In response to this, Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent seriously denied this fact that the respondent has received any rent from the petitioner.

9. This matter was listed yesterday and for resolving the dispute in between petitioner (tenant) and respondent (landlord) learned counsel for the petitioner was given time to get the instruction from his client within how much period he will vacate the shop in-question, and, furthermore, as to whether he is agreeable to increase the rent or not. Today, on instruction, Mr. Sagar Kothari, submits that his client has refused to give any consent either to vacate or to increase the rent and submits that he wants to contest the matter on merit.

10. Be that as it may, admittedly, the shop in question was never been given on rent to the petitioner as it was given to the petitioner’s father Vaidh

60 years’ back, who was, by profession, was and was runn