Admission That Property Had Structures Leads Supreme Court To Uphold Trial Eviction Decree; High Court Order Set Aside

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol heard an appeal arising out of an order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which had affirmed a revisional court’s remand directing the trial court to decide afresh whether the suit property was "open land" and whether the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit for eviction and arrears of rent.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned High Court order and sustained the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge (Small Causes), Hathras, which had ordered eviction of the tenants and recovery of rents. The judges held that a jurisdictional challenge was otiose in view of the defendants’ categorical admission that several structures existed on the disputed plot and that the property could not be treated as open land. The Court noted that the revisional court and the High Court erred in remanding the matter solely to determine whether the property was open land. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Since the Trial Court had adjudicated the suit and had granted the decree in favour of the appellant herein by directing the eviction of the tenants/defendants/respondents, issue No.2 raised in the Revision Petition filed by them being Revision Small Causes No.16/2019 was wholly otiose. This was because all that the Revisional Court had to note was whether the decree granted by the Trial Court was just and proper or not. When the respondents herein had not raised any jurisdictional issue with respect to the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Courts to entertain the suit, in the face of the categorical admission made by them in paragraph 18 of their written statement, issue No.2 raised was unnecessarily raised. On that point, the matter was remanded to the Trial Court which order has been affirmed by the High Court in the impugned order. We find that in the facts and circumstances of this case, raising of the said issue was wholly unnecessary and the correctness or otherwise of the decree only had to be seen. In view of the admission of the respondents herein, we do not think that any issue touching upon the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court to adjudicate the suit arose at all.”

Background The dispute concerned Khasra No. 13/2 at Nagla Bhambhu Jaat, Tehsil Sasni, District Hathras. The appellant and respondent No.3 had purchased the parcel by registered sale deed dated 12.08.1997. Respondent No.1 was a tenant who ran a service station on the land and had constructed a room, a shed and installed a water tank; rent was Rs. 500 per month but payments ceased from March 2001. The appellant alleged sub-letting to respondent No.2 and sought eviction and arrears in Small Causes Case No. 8/2001. The Small Causes Judge decreed the suit on 10.07.2019. The tenants filed Revision Small Causes No.16/2019; the Revisional Court allowed the revision on 25.05.2023 and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on whether the land was open land and hence whether the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction. The High Court, in MUA227 No. 8579/2023, upheld the revisional remand by its order dated 28.10.2023.

On appeal to this Court, the petitioner asserted that the tenants’ written statement had expressly admitted the existence of structures, thereby negating any jurisdictional issue under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 which applied to urban properties. The judgment reproduced paragraph 18 of the written statement: “That on the disputed plot, several structures have been erected, including a solid built room, a water tank, a service station, and two steps. Additionally, a jet pump has been installed, and an approved electricity connection is registered under the name of defendant No.1. Furthermore, the surrounding foundation has been completely filled.” Relying on that admission, the Supreme Court held that the remand was unnecessary and that the correctness of the trial decree alone required consideration.

The Court sustained the trial decree, set aside the High Court’s impugned order, and directed that the respondents hand over vacant possession to the appellant by 31 October 2025. The Court ordered that during this period the respondents shall not cause damage to the property, shall not create any third-party interest, and shall pay the rents and arrears as decreed; liberty was reserved to the appellant to seek execution in case of non-compliance.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. /2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8929/2024) Case Title: Amit Kumar v. Nihal Singh & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. C. Mohan Rao, Senior Advocate; Mr. K. B. Upadhyay, Advocate; Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, Advocate; Mr. Raja Ram Tripathi, Advocate; Ms. Kalpana, Advocate; Mr. Pushkar Anand, AOR For the Respondent(s): No appearance / Not represented (respondent Nos.1 and 3 placed ex parte)