MAHESH CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LR(S)versusBRIJESH KUMAR & ORS.

                [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1076 : 2025 INSC 1005

                Mahesh Chand (Dead) Through LR(s)
                               v.
                      Brijesh Kumar & Ors.
                       (Civil Appeal No. 10256 of 2025)
                                 19 August 2025
                 [Rajesh Bindal* and Manmohan, JJ.]


                             Issue for Consideration
       Whether the High Court was correct in directing the return of plaint
       to the appellant for presentation before the Court of competent
       jurisdiction.

                                    Headnotes†
       Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
       1950 – s.143 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. VII, Rule
       10 – Return of Plaint – A tenancy agreement was entered into
       between the appellant-landlord and predecessor-in-interest
       of respondent nos.1 to 3-tenants – Land was taken for the
       purpose of setting up of petrol pump – 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 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 – Application was rejected and suit was decreed –
       The First Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree
       of the trial Court and held that the land in question was not
       declared non-agricultural in terms of s.143 of the UPZALR
       Act – The High Court opined that there being no declaration
       u/s.143 of the UPZALR Act for the land in question to be
       non-agricultural, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred –
       Correctness:
       Held: There is no quarrel on the proposition of law that appeal
       is continuance of proceedings and any developments which may
       take place during pendency of the appeal or suit, going to the root
       of the case, can always be taken notice of to avoid multiplicity of
       litigation – It remained an undisputed fact that finally vide order dated


* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                                1077

     Mahesh Chand (Dead) Through LR(s) v. Brijesh Kumar & Ors.


     14.03.1986, the land in question was declared non-agricultural – In
     the case in hand, from the very beginning, vide registered tenancy
     agreement, the land was taken by the predecessor-in-interest of
     the respondent nos.1 to 3 for non-agricultural purposes – This fact
     also cannot be denied that on the date when the First Appellate
     Court passed the judgment on 27.07.1992, which was upheld by
     the High Court on 15.02.2024, the land in question had already
     been declared as non-agricultural u/s.143 of the UPZALR Act –
     After return of plaint in terms of judgment of the High Court dated
     15.02.2024, the Revenue Court will not have the jurisdiction to
     entertain the lis, as the land has been declared non-agricultural
     during pendency of the litigation – The Civil Court has the jurisdiction
     to entertain the suit – The impugned judgment and decree passed by
     the High Court is set aside – As the merits of the controversy were
     not dealt with by the First Appellate Court or the High Court, the
     case is remitted back to the First Appellate Court to be considered
     and decided on merits. [Paras 17, 18]

                                  List of Acts
     Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950;
     Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

                              List of Keywords
     Plaint; Return of plaint; Jurisdiction; Competent jurisdiction; Order
     VII, Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Non-agricultural
     land; Tenancy; Section 143 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition
     and Land Reforms Act, 1950; Revenue Court; Civil Court.

                             Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10256
     of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 15.02.2024 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Allahabad in SA No. 1623 of 1992

                          Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellants:
     Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Adv., Ajit Sharma, Kanchan Kumar,
     Akshat Sharma, Amrit Pradhan, Lareb Habib Ansari, Anant Ram
     Mishra.
1078                                                                  [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                                   Supreme Court Reports


      Advs. for the Respondents:
      S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv., Mangal Prasad, Prateek Yadav, Anurag Singh,
      Gaurav Lomes, Prithvi Yadav, Ms. Radha Rajput, Ankur Yadav, Mrs.
      Priya Puri, Sachin Dubey, Ms. Ritim Mangla, Ms. Saloni Dahiya.

                      Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                             Judgment

      Rajesh Bindal, J.

1.    The appellant-landlord has filed the present appeal impugning the
      judgment of the High Court1 in Second Appeal No.1623 of 19922.
      Vide aforesaid judgment, the appeal preferred by the appellant
      was partially accepted while setting aside the judgment of the First
      Appellate Court3. However, the High Court passed an order under
      Order VII Rule 10 of CPC4 directing return of plaint to the appellant
      for presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The Trial
      Court5 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 31.07.1970,
      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 31.07.1970.



1    High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2    Dated 15.02.2024
3    Court of Special Judge & Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr
4    Hereinafter referred to as the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
5    Court of Additional Civil Judge, Bulandshahr
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                         1079

      Mahesh Chand (Dead) Through LR(s) v. Brijesh Kumar & Ors.


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 dated 14.08.1976 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.
4.    Finally, after trial, the suit for possession and arrears of rent filed
      by the appellant, was decreed vide judgment dated 30.11.1981.
      Aggrieved against the same, both the parties preferred appeals
      before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, referring
      to various provisions of the UPZALR Act6, opined that the land in
      question was not declared non-agricultural in terms of Section 143
      of the UPZALR Act. Hence, the Civil Court will not have jurisdiction.
      The judgment and decree of the Trial Court was set aside. In the
      appeal preferred by the appellant, the claim was for increase of
      mesne profit. However, the same was dismissed.
5.    Against the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the appellant
      preferred second appeal before the High Court. The High Court
      allowed the appeal in part. The judgment and decree of the First
      Appellate Court was set aside and substituted by an order, under
      Order VII Rule 10 of CPC, directing return of the plaint to the appellant
      for presentation before the appropriate forum. The High Court opined
      that there being no declaration under Section 143 of the UPZALR
      Act for the land in question to be non-agricultural, the jurisdiction of
      the Civil Court is barred.
6.    The aforesaid judgment is impugned before this Court.
7.    Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that from the very
      beginning, the land in question was let out to the predecessor-in-
      interest of respondent nos.1 to 3, way back in the year 1970, for


6    The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
1080                                                         [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     setting up of a petrol pump, which was non-agricultural purpose.
     Nothing lies in the mouth of the respondent nos.1 to 3 to claim that
     the land is agricultural, just with a view to defeat the rightful claim of
     the appellant. He further submitted that initial approval was granted
     by the competent authority under Section 143 of the UPZALR Act for
     use of land for non-agricultural purposes on 10.12.1975. However,
     after litigation, finally vide order dated 14.03.1986 passed by the
     Deputy Collector, Khurja, the land was declared non-agricultural. The
     same attained finality. No doubt, civil suit for eviction was filed prior
     to aforesaid declaration of the land as non-agricultural. However, the
     nature of the land having been changed in terms of the provisions
     of UPZALR Act during the pendency of the proceedings, the suit
     filed by the appellant could not have been dismissed on account
     of jurisdiction as appeals are continuation of proceedings and
     subsequent events also have to be taken note of. The First Appellate
     Court, while adjudicating the appeal of the respondent nos.1 to 3,
     failed to take notice of this development.
8.   In the case in hand, suit was filed seeking eviction on account of
     non-payment of rent, which was due from 01.07.1972 onwards. Infact,
     it was admitted by the respondent nos. 1 to 3 that rent was paid to
     the appellant only up to 30.06.1972. Thereafter, claim of payment
     of rent to a third person was of no relevance as that person had no
     concern with the land in question. Since day one, the respondent
     nos. 1 to 3 knew that the land had been taken by them on rent
     for commercial purpose. They had taken all the permissions from
     different departments for setting up of a petrol pump. Hence, their
     argument is totally misconceived.
9.   On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3
     submitted that the declaration made by the competent authority
     under Section 143 of UPZALR Act is required to be registered in
     terms of Section 145 thereof. In the case in hand, there was no
     registration. Any declaration without registration is merely a paper,
     which cannot be relied upon to claim that the land was declared as
     non-agricultural. The declaration had to be on the date of filing of the
     suit. He further referred to various provisions of UPZALR Act to claim
     that the tenant will become owner without transferable rights in the
     facts and circumstances of the case. There is no error in the order
     passed by the High Court. The appeal deserves to be dismissed.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                          1081

     Mahesh Chand (Dead) Through LR(s) v. Brijesh Kumar & Ors.


10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant
    documents on record.
11. The basic facts that have been noticed above, which are not in
    dispute, are that a registered tenancy agreement was entered into
    between the parties on 31.07.1970. From day one, the land of the
    appellant was taken by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent
    nos.1 to 3 for setting up of a petrol pump, which is a commercial
    and non-agricultural purpose. The suit was filed in the year 1974
    seeking possession and arrears of rent. An application filed by
    the predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.1 to 3 raising issue
    of jurisdiction, was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated
    14.08.1976. The order was not challenged and the Trial Court decreed
    the suit. During pendency of the suit, initial approval was given to
    the appellant under Section 143 of the UPZALR Act vide order dated
    10.12.1975. However, after litigation, the issue was finally resolved
    by order dated 14.03.1986. The aforesaid fact is not in dispute.
    Meaning thereby, the initial order was passed when the civil suit was
    pending. However, the finality was attained during the pendency of
    the appeal before the First Appellate Court. Without even noticing
    the factum of the land in question being non-agricultural, declared
    vide order dated 14.03.1986, the First Appellate Court came to the
    conclusion that the Civil Court will not have jurisdiction to entertain
    the lis and only a Revenue Court is the competent forum. Impugned
    judgment and decree of the Trial Court was set aside and the suit
    of the appellant was dismissed.
12. The High Court framed the following substantial questions of law
    vide order dated 20.02.2020:
           “1. Whether the provisions of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, 1950
           would apply to the (sic) land let out for non agricultural
           purposes?
           2. Whether the provisions of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, 1950 would
           apply to the (sic) agricultural land located in an area that
           has fallen within the limits of a town area upon extension
           of boundaries after the date of vesting?
           3. Whether the land situate in an urban area utilized for to
           (sic) a non agricultural purposes would still be deemed to
           an agricultural land in the absence of a declaration under
           Section 143 U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act?
1082                                                         [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


           4. Whether a tenant is estopped from disputing the nature
           of the land demised after utilizing the same for non
           agricultural purposes?
           5. Whether the provisions of Section 165 U.P.Z.A.&L.R.
           Act would be attracted either in its amended form or un-
           amended, to land that has been found to be utilized for
           non agricultural purposes post letting?”
13. While dealing with question nos.1 to 3 together, the High Court opined
    that unless there is mandatory declaration under Section 143 of the
    UPZALR Act, the land will retain its character of being agricultural.
    Hence, the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court regarding
    jurisdiction of the Civil Court were upheld. It may be relevant to
    add here that even the High Court had not noticed the fact that the
    land in question was declared to be non-agricultural initially vide
    order dated 10.12.1975, which was finally passed on 14.03.1986. It
    happened during the pendency of the litigation.
14. The High Court while upholding the judgment and decree of the
    First Appellate Court on the issue of jurisdiction, was of the opinion
    that in the circumstances, the plaint of the appellant deserved to be
    returned, hence, passed an order under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC
    directing the same.
15. There is no quarrel on the proposition of law that appeal is continuance
    of proceedings and any developments which may take place during
    pendency of the appeal or suit, going to the root of the case, can
    always be taken notice of to avoid multiplicity of litigation. It remained
    an undisputed fact that finally vide order dated 14.03.1986, the land
    in question was declared non-agricultural. In the case in hand, from
    the very beginning, vide registered tenancy agreement, the land was
    taken by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent nos.1 to 3
    for non-agricultural purposes. This fact also cannot be denied that
    on the date when the First Appellate Court passed the judgment on
    27.07.1992, which was upheld by the High Court on 15.02.2024,
    the land in question had already been declared as non-agricultural
    under Section 143 of the UPZALR Act. After return of plaint in terms
    of judgment of the High Court dated 15.02.2024, the Revenue Court
    will not have the jurisdiction to entertain the lis, as the land has been
    declared non-agricultural during pendency of the litigation. The Civil
    Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                      1083

     Mahesh Chand (Dead) Through LR(s) v. Brijesh Kumar & Ors.


16. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondent
    nos. 1 to 3 is that on the date of filing of the suit, declaration under
    Section 143 of the UPZALR Act being not available, hence, the suit
    was not maintainable, is liable to be rejected.
17. His further argument that because of non-registration of the
    declaration of the section 143 of the Act, it was a waste paper and
    could not be relied upon, is also of no consequence. Section 145 of
    the UPZALR Act, on which reliance is sought to be placed, in support
    of the arguments, does not cast any duty on the land owner to get it
    registered. As per Section 145 of the UPZALR Act, it is the duty of the
    Assistant Collector-in-charge of the Sub-Division to forward a copy of
    the declaration made under Section 143 of the UPZALR Act to the
    Sub Registrar to do the needful. Such registration is to be made free
    of cost notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Registration
    Act, 1908. Meaning thereby, no duty is cast on the appellant to get
    the same registered. Apparently, it is merely a procedure. No fee
    has to be paid as the relevant registration was free of cost. Merely
    on account of deficiency by the officers, the appellant cannot be
    deprived of the benefits of the declaration so made.
18. For the reasons mentioned above, in our opinion, there is merit in
    the present appeal. The same is accordingly allowed. The impugned
    judgment and decree passed by the High Court is set aside. As the
    merits of the controversy were not dealt with by the First Appellate
    Court or the High Court, the case is remitted back to the First
    Appellate Court to be considered and decided on merits. Litigation
    being more than 50 years old, we direct the First Appellate Court to
    hear and decide the appeal within a period of six months from the
    date of receipt of the copy of this order.
19. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of with no
    order as to costs.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan