JUDGMENT : Prakash Padia, J. 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 v. 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. 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 not instituted under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party that in view of provisions contained under Section 16 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887, the suit is cognizable by the Judge Small Causes Court and the provisions contained in Act of 2021 are not applicable. The learned counsel for the opposite party has further relied upon a judgment dated 15.5.2022 delivered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in SCC Revision No. 158 of 2022 (Amit Gupta v. Gulab Chand Kanodia). 9. In the aforesaid judgment, two following questions were formulated for consideration, namely- ''(a). The learned counsel for the opposite party has further relied upon a judgment dated 15.5.2022 delivered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in SCC Revision No. 158 of 2022 (Amit Gupta v. Gulab Chand Kanodia). 9. In the aforesaid judgment, two following questions were formulated for consideration, namely- ''(a). Whether a Small Cause Suit already instituted, since prior to coming into force of the new Tenancy Act, 2021 and so also such SCC revision arising therefrom would stand saved or the SCC suit and SCC Revision being not mentioned in the repeal and saving clause of Section 46, the proceedings of such suit and revision would stand abated; and (b). Whether the bar created under Section 38 of the Tenancy Act is not an absolute one and so Small Cause Suit for arrears of recovery of Rent and Eviction (SCC Suit) and SCC Revision arising therefrom would still be maintainable even after the enforcement of the New Tenancy Act, 2021 qua the of tenancies not covered by tenancy agreements provided for under Tenancy Act, 2021.'' 10. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, after considering the entire provisions of Act of 2021, Small Causes Court Act & Transfer of Property Act answered the question No. A in paragraph 84 which is reproduced below : ''84. Thus to sum up on fist question ''(a), I hold that pending SCC suits and SCC revisions on the date of enforcement of the new Tenancy Act, 2021, shall not abate notwithstanding the provisions as contained under Section 42 of the New Tenancy Act, 2021 as no such intendment can be drawn inasmuch as, Section 6 of General Clauses Act would apply. Still further SCC suits would stand saved as where conceived of under old Rent Control Act, proceedings whereof have been saved under sub-section 2 of Section 46 of the new Tenancy Act, 2021.'' 11. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, further answered question No. B in paragraph 107, which reads as under : ''107. To sum up on question ''(b)'' I am of the view and so hold that Small Cause Suits would still be maintainable in cases of tenancies not covered under Section 4 and relating to rights accrued, if any under the Transfer Property Act, 1882 where a tanancy is unwritten, and a tenancy is on month to month basis. To sum up on question ''(b)'' I am of the view and so hold that Small Cause Suits would still be maintainable in cases of tenancies not covered under Section 4 and relating to rights accrued, if any under the Transfer Property Act, 1882 where a tanancy is unwritten, and a tenancy is on month to month basis. Overriding effect of Section 42 will give way to the Central Act, and there could be no doubt about that if the Central Act has occupied the field to certain extent.'' 12. It is well-settled law that while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only plaint averment has to be taken into consideration. 13. In the plaint, it is specifically stated that the tenancy was created through registered rent agreement dated 11.6.2015 and rate of rent was Rs. 6000/- per month. 14. As per paragraph 3 of the plaint averment the tenancy was for fixed term i.e. 1.7.2015 to 30.6.2020. After expiry of fixed term i.e. 30.6.2020, though no notice was required, but a notice, demanding arrear of rent, damages for use and occupation and vacant possession of the shop was made by the plaintiff. 15. As the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable, the suit for recovery of arrears of rent is maintainable only in SCC Court, in view of the provisions contained under Section 16 of the Small Causes Court Act, no other Court will have jurisdiction to try the suit. 16. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, while answering the question No. B has also held that the suit will be triable by the Judge Small Causes Court, as the Central Act has occupied the field to certain extent. 17. The suit is for recovery of rent and damages, the rent agreement was for fixed term upto 30.6.2020. It is not case of defendant that tenancy is covered under Section 4 of the Act of 2021. After 30.6.2020, the tenancy is unwritten. Hence in view of para 107 of Amit Gupta case (supra) the SCC suit is maintainable. 18. 17. The suit is for recovery of rent and damages, the rent agreement was for fixed term upto 30.6.2020. It is not case of defendant that tenancy is covered under Section 4 of the Act of 2021. After 30.6.2020, the tenancy is unwritten. Hence in view of para 107 of Amit Gupta case (supra) the SCC suit is maintainable. 18. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the Additional District & Session Judge, F.T.C.- 2 (under Section 14 of the Finance Commissioner), Gorakhpur dated 21.11.2022 in SCC Revision No. 2 of 2021 (Sunita Devi v. Ratan Lal Jaiswal) is absolutely perfect and valid order and does not call for any interference. 19. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 20. Accordingly, the revision is Dismissed.