UP Tenancy Act | Third Party Claiming Independent Title Not A Necessary Or Proper Party To Eviction Proceedings: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that a third party asserting an independent title adverse to the landlord is neither a necessary nor a proper party to proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021.

It held that questions of title cannot be brought into eviction proceedings through an application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since their adjudication lies beyond the statutory jurisdiction of the Rent Authority.

Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held,

“A person claiming an independent right or title adverse to the landlord cannot, by seeking impleadment, enlarge the scope of eviction proceedings or invite the Rent Authority to adjudicate disputes relating to ownership. Such disputes are required to be agitated before the competent civil court in appropriately instituted proceedings. Consequently, a third party asserting an independent title neither qualifies as a necessary party nor as a proper party to proceedings instituted under Section 21 of the Act.”

The Court further held,

“Any contrary view would have the effect of converting the summary remedy provided under the Act into a forum for adjudication of complex civil disputes relating to title, a course neither contemplated by nor permissible under the statutory scheme of the Act.”

The respondent-landlord instituted proceedings under Section 21(2) of the Act before the Rent Authority, in which the petitioner, a stranger to the tenancy, sought impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The Rent Authority allowed the application, but in appeal the Rent Tribunal set aside that order.

The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 21(2) are confined to the landlord-tenant dispute and to the grounds pleaded in support of the prayer for eviction, and that the petitioner had sought impleadment solely to dispute the landlord's title and ownership over the premises. Such a dispute, according to the Tribunal, fell wholly outside the scope of the Act, and the petitioner was accordingly neither a necessary nor a proper party.

Petitioner challenged the order before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Counsel for petitioner was unable to dispute that proceedings under Section 21(2)(b) do not contemplate adjudication of complicated questions of title, or that the Tribunal's order suffered from no patent jurisdictional error, manifest illegality or perversity.

The Court held that the Rent Authority exercises a limited statutory jurisdiction and cannot be asked to decide complicated questions of title between the landlord and a stranger to the tenancy, such a claimant having an efficacious remedy before the civil court.

It observed that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not warrant interference merely because another view is also possible.

“Equally, the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined to ensuring that the subordinate courts and tribunals act within the bounds of their jurisdiction. Unless the impugned order is shown to suffer from patent lack of jurisdiction, manifest perversity, or an error apparent resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, interference is not warranted merely because another view may also be possible.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Murti Markandeshwar Ji Maharaj Gopal Ki Bagiya, City Jhansi v. Smt. Jyoti Gangwani And Another

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, Vinay Kumar Tiwari, Vineet Tiwari

Counsel for Respondent :- Rishabh Agarwal

Click Here To Read/Download Order