Allahabad High Court
Amarjot Singh Suri vs Pradeep Kumar Jain And 5 Others on 5 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:131804-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19716 of 2025 Petitioner :- Amarjot Singh Suri Respondent :- Pradeep Kumar Jain And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Balwinder Singh Suri,Mukesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Mani Shukla,Sudeep Harkauli Hon'ble Arindam Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
(Per Arindam Sinha, J.)
1. Mr. Balwinder Singh Suri, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client has challenged vires of section 10 in Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 as well as for quashing notice dated 22nd March, 2025, in respect of demise his client is occupying. He submits, the demise belongs to respondent no.6 and in any event, section 10 or any other provision in the Act would not apply by reason of clause (i) under section 3 (1). Section 3(1)(i) is reproduced below.
"3. Act not to apply to certain premises.-(1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to any-
(i) premises owned by the Central Government or State Government or Union territory Administration or a Government undertaking or enterprises or a statutory body or Cantonment Board;
.............................?"
2. Mr. Sudeep Harkauli, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent no.1. He submits, the premises in its entirety is partly owned by his client and partly leased out from respondent no.6. Petitioner is tenant under his client, in respect of part of the leased out portion. Impugned notice dated 22nd March, 2025 stands issued to his client. Separate proceeding is pending in respect of the notice, as initiated by his client.
3. Mr. Devansh Rathore, learned advocate, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State. Mr. Shyam Mani Shukla, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent no.6.
4. Section 122 in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 estops a tenant or licensee from denying title of the landlord. Petitioner's vires challenge is based on contention that the premises belongs to respondent no.6 and therefore, the tenancy Act does not apply. Section 10 in the tenancy Act empowers the rent authority to determine revised rent in case of dispute. Petitioner by his own showing has demonstrated respondent no.1 is his landlord. This is because he has challenged notice issued to the landlord. Otherwise, he does not have cause of action. By the former position he is estopped. The latter position does not require us to adjudicate.
5. Mr. Suri relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in D. Satyanarayana vs. P. Jagadish reported in (1987) 4 SCC 424, paragraph 4 carving out exception regarding conduct of a tenant as may be adopted in line with provision under section 116 in Evidence Act, 1872. He submits, the exception allows and keeps it open to the tenant, even without surrendering possession, to show that since the date of tenancy, title of his landlord came to an end or that he (the landlord) was evicted by a paramount title holder or that even though there was no actual eviction or dispossession from the property, under a threat of eviction he had attorned to the paramount title holder.
6. We reiterate, impugned notice stands issued to respondent no.1. Petitioner's case appears to be respondent no.6, who issued the notice, is paramount title holder. Respondent no.1 says proceeding has been initiated against the notice. Mr. Shyam Mani Shukla confirms, proceeding has been initiated by respondent no.1 against the notice. As such, there cannot be implication of implied dispossession or surrender by respondent no.1 to paramount title holder, respondent no.6.
7. The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Gurpreet Singh (Arindam Sinha, J.) (Manjive Shukla,J.)