Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3613 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 125 of 2025 Petitioner :- Saroja Singh Respondent :- Addl. District Judge/Special Judge Prevention Of Corruption Act,Court No. 6, Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Triloki Nath Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Abhishek Kumar Singh,Dibyam Mishra,Shubhangi Singh AND Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 127 of 2025 Petitioner :- Saroja Singh Respondent :- Addl. District Judge/Special Judge, Prevention Corruption Act Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Triloki Nath Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Abhishek Kumar Singh,Dibyam Mishra,Shubhangi Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. In both the matters filed under Article 227, the orders dated 11.11.2024 passed in SCC Revision No.104 of 2024 and in the SCC Revision No.105 of 2024 have been challenged, whereby, the orders of the JSC Court were set aside by the revisional court. 3. As common questions of law and facts arise in both the applications and as such both the applications filed under Article 227 are being decided by means of this common judgment. 4. The facts in brief are that the applicant being a landlady initiated and filed a proceedings for eviction of the respondent, who is the tenant, under Section 20 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, mainly on two grounds, first being the arrears of rent and second being material altercation in the premises. A suit was decreed by the JSC Court, against which, the tenant preferred a revision. The revision came to be allowed on all three counts. Firstly that there are no default in payment of rent; secondly that the material alteration alleged, cannot amount to distinguish the property or diminish its value and the revisional court also considered the mandate of Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, which was enacted and came into force on 11.01.2021 and the proceedings of eviction was filed on 09.07.2021, as such, the revisional court held that the jurisdiction for proceedings under the 1972 Act need not exists specifically in view of the repealed of the 1972 Act by virtue of Section 42. 5. Assailing the said findings, the Counsel for the applicant argues that the small cause court had rightly held that there was default of payment of rent of one month, which was admitted by the tenant, which aspect has not been considered by the revisional court. It is further argued that the altercation carried out were held to be materially effecting the structure of the building and the said finding could not have been reversed by the revisional court. As regards the jurisdiction, it is argued by the Counsel for the applicant that the question of jurisdiction was not raised before the JSC Court and as such, the respondent was barred from raising the said construction. He thus argues that the revisional court could not have been gone into the issue of jurisdiction at this stage, as such, the order impugned is bad in law and the same is liable to be quashed. 6. The Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supports the impugned order. While arguing on the question of jurisdiction, he argues that by virtue of Section 46 (1), the 1972 Act has been repealed and even as per Section 46(2), only the proceedings which were initiated and pending under the old Act were sealed and thus, the Court had no jurisdiction. He further argues that the issue of jurisdiction can be considered at any stage. As regards the material constructions, he argues that the revisional court has dealt with the two judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in arriving at the finding that the constructions merely included the demolition of two intervening walls which could not have effect of the material alteration in the structure of the premises and thus no fault can be found to the revisional order. 7. Considering the submissions made at the bar, I propose to decide the issue of jurisdiction first as it goes to the root of the case. 8. Admittedly, the Act 2021 was enforced with effect from 11.01.2021 and the proceedings were initiated on 09.07.2021, as such, by virtue of Section 46(2), the proceedings were initiated under a repealed act. The filing of the petition would not even be saved by virtue of Section 42 of the Act, as such, I have no hesitation in holding that the proceedings are without jurisdiction. No interference is called for with the impugned order. Both the applications are dismissed. Order Date :- 21.1.2025 akverma Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench