Supreme Court Upholds Civil Court Jurisdiction in Long-Standing Land Dispute Involving Commercial Tenancy.


19-August-2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by a landlord challenging the decision of the Allahabad High Court, which had ordered the return of a civil suit on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The case involved a piece of land rented out in 1970 for establishing an Indian Oil petrol pump, under a registered tenancy agreement at Rs. 150 per month. Due to the tenant's failure to pay rent from July 1972, the landlord filed a civil suit in 1974 seeking possession and recovery of rent.

During the trial, the tenant argued that the land was agricultural and thus fell under the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court. The Trial Court rejected this argument, asserting the land was leased for non-agricultural use. This decision remained unchallenged and the suit was decreed in favor of the landlord in 1981.


 

 

On appeal, however, the First Appellate Court reversed the decree, ruling that the land retained its agricultural character due to the absence of a Section 143 declaration under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (UPZALR) Act. The High Court partially allowed the landlord's second appeal but ordered the return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC due to jurisdictional issues.

The Supreme Court held that the land had, in fact, been declared non-agricultural during the litigation—initially in 1975 and finally confirmed in 1986—making the Civil Court the appropriate forum. The Court emphasized that since appeals are a continuation of original proceedings, subsequent developments must be considered to avoid redundant litigation. The Court also rejected the respondent’s argument that the non-registration of the Section 143 declaration nullified its effect, clarifying that the responsibility for registration lies with government officials, not the landowner.

As neither the First Appellate Court nor the High Court addressed the case's merits, the Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the First Appellate Court for a decision on substantive issues. The Court directed that the appeal be decided within six months, noting the prolonged duration of the dispute.