Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 94 (ALL)

Raman Arora v. Susheel Kumar (Deceased)

2025-01-23

AJIT KUMAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : 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) of the Act No. 16 of 2021. He further submits that the new Act being the State Act having only the Governor's assent, will not be having overriding effect upon the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972 which amends the Central Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 in its application to the State of Uttar Pradesh to maintain eviction suits in respect of leases of urban buildings, with the Presidential assent. He argues that in the case of Amarjeet Singh (Writ A No. 3023 of 2024) which is subsequent in point of time to Amit Gupta (supra), has not dealt with this aspect of matter at all and, hence, will not be a binding judicial precedent. He argues that in the case of Amarjeet Singh (Writ A No. 3023 of 2024) which is subsequent in point of time to Amit Gupta (supra), has not dealt with this aspect of matter at all and, hence, will not be a binding judicial precedent. Besides this he also argues that on the principle of propriety, if a Coordinate Bench was taking a different view from what had already been taken by another Coordinate Bench in its judgment which was earlier in point of time and which had not been overruled, then subsequent Coordinate Bench ought to have referred the matter to a Larger Bench. He submits that there being no written agreement between the parties as to tenancy/ lease qua the premises in question, the small causes suit was absolutely maintainable in view of the provisions as contained under the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972 having the Presidential assent even in the event the new Act is taken to have been brought into force with effect from 11.01.2021. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for respective parties and having perused the order passed by Judge Small Causes/ Additional District Judge, Court No. 15, Bulandshahar dated 15.07.2023 and the judgment in the case of Amit Gupta (supra) and the judgment in the case of Amarjeet Singh (supra) I find force in the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for respondent even though I do not find myself in agreement with the view taken by the Judge Small Causes that the new Act being Act No. 16 of 2021 should be taken to have been brought into force only with effect from 24.08.2021. The Judge Small Causes though has referred to the ordinance earlier issued by the Governor on 11.01.2021 which later on got translated into a legislative enactment but has failed to appreciate Sub-Section 4 of Section 1 of the Act No. 16 of 2021. Sub-Section 4 of Section 1 runs as under: "1.(4) It shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from January 11, 2021." 7. Sub-Section 4 of Section 1 runs as under: "1.(4) It shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from January 11, 2021." 7. From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision it is clear that legislature intended to give retrospective effect to the Act No. 16 of 2021 with effect from the issuance of ordinance i.e. 11.01.2021 and, therefore, there is no scope of doubt left to hold that the Act would be taken to have come into force with effect from 11.01.2021. 8. The question now arises as to the legal position qua maintainability of eviction suits in cases of unwritten agreement. While in Amit Gupta's case (supra) such suits have been held to be maintainable, under Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 despite Act No. 16 of 2021 coming into existence but recently a Co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Amarjeet Singh (supra) has taken a different view holding that written agreement is not sine qua non to maintain a case for eviction at the instance of landlord under Section 21 (1) of the Act No. 16 of 2021. The principle evolved is that new Act provides a forum to cover all rent cases when tenancy is admitted to the parties. With great respect to his Lordship, I find there to be hardly any discussion as to the scope of Section 28 (2) of the Act No. 16 of 2021 in as much as the status of small causes courts' jurisdiction under U.P. Civil Law Amendment Act, 1972 which has the Presidential assent. The language of Section 38 (2) is very clear and it bars in quite an unequivocal terms exercise of jurisdiction by Rent Authority in cases when written agreement are not there between landlord and tenant as per format prescribed under Ist Schedule to Act No. 16 of 2021. No provision which is very clear in its language can be interpreted otherwise to either enlarge its scope of application or to narrow it down. The legislature uses every word cautiously and with a meaningful purpose. The Act of 2021 aims at improving upon the existing tenancy laws with new legislation and intends to bind parties to enter tenancy agreements in writing to remove uncertainties as to rent, terms and tenure of tenancy with an object to protect interest of both landlord and tenant. The legislature uses every word cautiously and with a meaningful purpose. The Act of 2021 aims at improving upon the existing tenancy laws with new legislation and intends to bind parties to enter tenancy agreements in writing to remove uncertainties as to rent, terms and tenure of tenancy with an object to protect interest of both landlord and tenant. Any interference to present rent authority to entertain cases in cases of unwritten tenancy would defeat the very object of the Act. Much detailed analysis has been done in Amit Gupta's Case but all that has remained virtually unnoticed in subsequent judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench in Amarjet Singh's case. The Court has not discussed and analysed the aspect whether that such an interpretation as was being made in the case (Amarjeet Singh's case) would give an overriding effect to State Act with only Governor's assent upon earlier enactment having presidential assent and if yes, whether such an interpretation would be justified. 9. Now, question is about binding judicial precedent qua this subsequent judgment. The Courts have repeatedly held that if a Bench of same strength arrives at a different view on a point of law from earlier view expressed by an earlier Bench, it should in proprietary, refer the matter to a larger Bench. Recently in the case of Mary Pushpam v. Telvi Curusumary and others (2024) 3 Supreme Court Cases 224 vide paragraphs 20 and 21 the Court has held thus: "20. The legal position on coordinate Benches has further been elaborated by this Court in State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd: 339. Judicial discipline envisages that a coordinate Bench follow the decision of an earlier coordinate Bench. If a coordinate Bench does not agree with the principles of law enunciated by another Bench, the matter may be referred to a larger Bench. 340. In Halsbury's Law of England (4th Edn) Vol. 26 at pp 297-98 para 578, it is stated ' A decision is given per incuriam when the court has acted in ignorance of a previous decision of its own or of a court of coordinate jurisdiction which covered the case before, it in which case it must decide which case to follow.' 21. 26 at pp 297-98 para 578, it is stated ' A decision is given per incuriam when the court has acted in ignorance of a previous decision of its own or of a court of coordinate jurisdiction which covered the case before, it in which case it must decide which case to follow.' 21. We have already discussed about the importance of ensuring judicial discipline and the same has also been upheld by various judgment of this Court in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, this court has summed up the legal position of rules of judicial discipline as follows: 12. ... (1) The law laid down by this Court in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or coequal strength. (2) A Bench of lesser quorum cannot disagree or dissent from the view of the law taken by a Bench of larger quorum. In case of doubt all that the bench of lesseer quorum can do is to invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the matter being placed for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum than the Bench whose decision has come up for consideration. It will be open only for a Bench of coequal strength to express an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier Bench of coequal strength, whereupon the matter may be placed for hearing before a Bench consisting of a quorum larger than the one which pronounced the decision laying down the law the " correctness of which is doubted (Emphasis added) 10. Thus, if a bench of same strength comes to conclude that earlier co-ordinate Bench had either ignored a particular provision of law or has failed to properly appreciate the same, it has only option to refer it to a larger Bench. It, in propriety and to maintain judicial discipline can not take a different view altogether. 11. Thus, since, the small cause suit in the matter of unwritten agreement between the parties under Section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act have been made applicable by the U.P.Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972 with the Presidential assent, I hold the suit to be maintainable on this count in view of the law laid down also by this Court also in the case of Amit Gupta (supra) 12. Thus, in view of the above, I do not subscribe to the view taken by the Judge Small Causes regarding applicability of Act No. 16 of 2021 only with effect from 24.08.2021, I still hold the small causes suit filed by the landlord to be maintainable before the Judge Small Causes. 13. Hence, I decline to grant interference with the suit proceedings. 14.The revision application on this count, therefore, stands dismissed.