MAHESH CHAND Vs. BRIJESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-landlord has filed the present appeal impugning the judgment of the High Court[High Court of Judicature at Allahabad] in Second Appeal No.1623 of 1992[dtd. 15/2/2024]. Vide aforesaid judgment, the appeal preferred by the appellant was partially accepted while setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court[Court of Special Judge & Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr]. However, the High Court passed an order under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC[Hereinafter referred to as the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908] directing return of plaint to the appellant for presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The Trial Court[Court of Additional Civil Judge, Bulandshahr] had decreed the suit filed by the appellant for possession and recovery of rent. An appeal was preferred by the respondent nos.1 to 3 - tenants. The First Appellate Court had reversed the findings while holding that the Trial Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the lis because the land in question is agricultural.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as available on record are that a tenancy agreement was entered into between the parties on 31/7/1970, vide which portion of land was taken on rent by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.1 to 3 @ ₹150/- per month. The land was taken for the purpose of setting up of Indian Oil petrol pump by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.1 to 3. It was mentioned in the tenancy agreement that on failure by the tenant to pay rent regularly, the appellant shall have the right to evict him and recover the arrears of rent. The aforesaid tenancy agreement was duly registered on 31/7/1970.

(3.) As the predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.1 to 3 failed to pay rent regularly, a suit for eviction was filed by the appellant in the year 1974. In the aforesaid suit, an application was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.1 to 3 contending that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction. It was claimed that land in question is agricultural. Hence, only the Revenue Court will have jurisdiction to deal with the issue. The aforesaid application was rejected by the Trial Court vide order dtd. 14/8/1976 as the land in question, since the very beginning, was let out for non-agricultural purpose for setting up of a petrol pump, hence, Civil Court will have jurisdiction. The order was not challenged by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.1 to 3.