Introduction:

In Murti Markandeshwar Ji Maharaj Gopal Ki Bagiya, City Jhansi v. Smt. Jyoti Gangwani and Another, the Allahabad High Court clarified the limited scope of eviction proceedings under the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, holding that a third party claiming ownership of the disputed property cannot seek impleadment in such proceedings. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava ruled that the Rent Authority, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Act, is concerned only with the landlord-tenant relationship and the statutory grounds for eviction. It cannot adjudicate complicated questions relating to title or ownership.

The dispute arose after the respondent-landlord initiated eviction proceedings under Section 21(2) of the Act before the Rent Authority. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner, who was not a tenant but claimed an independent title over the property, filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to be impleaded as a party. The Rent Authority allowed the application. However, the Rent Tribunal set aside the order, holding that disputes relating to ownership fall outside the jurisdiction of the Rent Authority. Aggrieved by the Tribunal’s decision, the petitioner invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The case required the High Court to determine whether a person asserting an independent title adverse to the landlord could be treated as a necessary or proper party in eviction proceedings under the 2021 Act and whether the Tribunal had committed any jurisdictional error in refusing impleadment.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner contended that it possessed an independent right and ownership over the property in question and, therefore, its presence in the eviction proceedings was necessary for a complete and effective adjudication of the dispute. It argued that unless it was impleaded, any decision in the eviction proceedings could adversely affect its claimed proprietary rights. Accordingly, the petitioner sought impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC on the ground that it was a proper and necessary party to the proceedings.

The respondent-landlord opposed the application by submitting that the petitioner was a complete stranger to the tenancy and had no legal relationship with either the landlord or the tenant under the provisions of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021. It was argued that proceedings under Section 21 are summary in nature and are confined to determining the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship and whether statutory grounds for eviction have been established. Questions concerning ownership or title, particularly when raised by third parties, are beyond the jurisdiction of the Rent Authority and can only be decided by a competent civil court.

The respondent further submitted that permitting such impleadment would unnecessarily enlarge the scope of eviction proceedings and defeat the legislative objective of providing a speedy remedy under the Act. During the hearing before the High Court, the petitioner’s counsel was unable to dispute that complicated questions of title are not intended to be decided under Section 21 proceedings or that the Tribunal’s order suffered from any jurisdictional error, perversity or manifest illegality warranting interference under Article 227.

Court’s Judgment:

Dismissing the petition, the Allahabad High Court upheld the order of the Rent Tribunal and reiterated that the Rent Authority exercises a limited statutory jurisdiction under the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021. The Court held that eviction proceedings under Section 21 are confined exclusively to disputes arising between the landlord and the tenant and cannot be converted into proceedings for deciding competing claims of ownership raised by third parties.

Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava observed that a person asserting an independent title adverse to the landlord neither qualifies as a necessary party nor as a proper party in eviction proceedings. The Court explained that impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC cannot be permitted where the applicant seeks to introduce issues that fall outside the statutory jurisdiction of the forum. Since the Rent Authority lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate title disputes, allowing such an application would unnecessarily widen the scope of the proceedings.

The Court emphasised that disputes relating to ownership are often complex and require detailed evidence, examination of documents and adjudication by a competent civil court. Such issues cannot be decided in summary proceedings contemplated under the Tenancy Act. The statutory framework intentionally limits the jurisdiction of the Rent Authority to landlord-tenant disputes so that eviction proceedings remain expeditious and effective.

The High Court further observed that accepting the petitioner’s contention would frustrate the legislative intent behind the Act. Every third party claiming ownership could seek impleadment and transform summary eviction proceedings into prolonged civil litigation involving complicated questions of title. Such an approach, the Court held, is neither contemplated nor permissible under the statutory scheme.

While examining the challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Court reiterated the settled principles governing supervisory jurisdiction. It observed that the High Court does not function as an appellate court while exercising powers under Article 227. Interference is justified only where the subordinate court or tribunal has acted without jurisdiction, committed manifest illegality, acted perversely or caused grave miscarriage of justice.

In the present case, the Court found that the Rent Tribunal had correctly appreciated the statutory scheme and had committed no jurisdictional error in refusing impleadment. Since the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy before the competent civil court to establish its alleged ownership rights, there was no justification for interfering with the Tribunal’s order.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition and affirmed that disputes concerning title must be resolved independently before the civil court, while eviction proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 must remain confined to issues relating to the landlord-tenant relationship. The judgment reinforces the distinction between summary rent proceedings and civil suits involving ownership disputes, ensuring that specialised statutory forums operate strictly within the limits of their jurisdiction.