Absence of Written Tenancy Agreement

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Canara Bank Branch Office and 1 other v. Sri Ashok Kumar @ Heera Singh (2025) held that rent authorities under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 have jurisdiction to entertain landlord eviction applications even where no tenancy agreement has been executed and the landlord has failed to furnish particulars of tenancy. 

What was the Background of Canara Bank Branch Office and 1 other v. Sri Ashok Kumar @ Heera Singh Case? 

• The landlord filed a suit in Small Causes Court seeking eviction of the tenant and recovery of rent arrears on the grounds that the tenant had made significant changes to the property. 
• The tenant-petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) contending that after the enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, the suit stood barred by Section 38, which bars jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of certain matters. 
• The Small Causes Court rejected the tenant's application. 
• The petitioner then approached the Allahabad High Court challenging the order of the Small Causes Court. 
• The central question before the Court was whether the rent authority constituted under the Act of 2021 has jurisdiction to entertain applications filed by landlords in cases where no tenancy agreement has been executed and the landlord has failed to file particulars of tenancy with the rent authority. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court observed a significant departure between the Model Tenancy Act prepared by the Central Government and the Act of 2021 enacted by the State Legislature regarding the mandatory nature of tenancy agreements. 
• While the Model Tenancy Act expressly bars parties from claiming relief if they fail to intimate about execution or non-execution of tenancy agreement, the State Legislature chose to omit such consequences when enacting the Act of 2021. 
• The Court analyzed Section 4 of the Act of 2021 and held that it only envisages different situations in which tenancy agreements are arrived at, but nowhere restricts the rights of parties who admit the status of landlord and tenant. 
• Had the Legislature intended to restrict parties to approach rent authority only in cases of executed agreements or proper intimation, it would have adopted the restrictive provisions of the Model Tenancy Act. 
• The Act of 2021 provides for no penal consequences for failure to intimate particulars of tenancy to the Rent Authority, therefore the requirement of intimation under Section 4 must be held directory and not mandatory. 
• Consequent failure on part of the landlord to intimate about the particulars of tenancy would not divest him of his rights to seek eviction under the Act of 2021. 
• The Court emphasized that the intention of the Legislature must be seen considering all provisions and their objectives, and cannot be limited to understanding of a single provision in isolation. 

What is Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Rejection of Plaint? 

• Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides for rejection of plaint in specific circumstances enumerated thereunder. 
  • Clause (a) mandates rejection of plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action. 
  • Clause (b) provides for rejection where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff fails to correct the valuation within the time fixed by the Court. 
  • Clause (c) deals with cases where the relief is properly valued but the plaint is insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff fails to supply requisite stamp-paper within the time fixed. 
  • Clause (d) mandates rejection where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. 
  • Clause (e) provides for rejection where the plaint is not filed in duplicate. 
  • Clause (f) stipulates rejection where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9 of Order VII. 
• The proviso stipulates that time for correction of valuation or supplying stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by exceptional cause and refusal would cause grave injustice. 
• The power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is an extraordinary power and must be exercised with great caution and circumspection. 
• Under clause (d), the Court must determine from the averments in the plaint itself whether the suit is barred by any law, including the law of limitation. 
• The scope of enquiry under Order VII Rule 11(d) is limited to the face of the plaint and the documents annexed thereto or referred to therein. 
• The defence set up by the defendant cannot be considered while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 
• The power should be exercised only in clear and manifest cases where the plaint is ex facie barred. 
• Where determination of limitation requires examination of evidence or consideration of mixed questions of law and fact, the plaint cannot be rejected under clause (d). 
• The Court cannot travel beyond the four corners of the plaint while considering an application for rejection under Order VII Rule 11. 
• Where several reliefs are claimed and even one relief is within limitation, the plaint cannot be rejected in its entirety as barred by law. 
• The provision should not be used to shut out genuine claims merely on technical grounds without full adjudication on merits.