1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:31350 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6148 of 2025 Petitioner :- Tarun Chaturvedi Respondent :- M/S Motor And General Sales Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Auth.Representive / G.M. Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Mishra Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhinav Bhattacharya,Dhruv Duggal,Pramod Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- Yogendra Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard Sri Abhinav Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dheeraj Pandey, holding brief of Sri Yogendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court. The same is taken on record. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 19.03.2024 passed against the petitioner in proceeding under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2021) as well as the order dated 28.04.2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. 4. The facts in brief are that the respondent-landlord instituted proceedings by filing application under Section 21 of Act 2021 on the grounds that the rents were not being paid by the petitioner-tenant, the pending required repairs and also that the need of the shop in question was genuine and was needed for the land-lord, the petitioner-tenant instead of filing objections moved an application as preliminary objection. In the said preliminary objection filed on 04.08.2023, it was argued that there was the re-constitution of the petitioner's firm, the application at their instance was not maintainable. The Authority under the 21 of the Act, proceeded to pass an order, whereby directions for eviction was made vide order dated 19.03.2024. 5. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal prescribed under the Act, a copy of memo of the appeal is on record as Annexure No. 7. In the said appeal, it was alleged that without considering the preliminary objections, the application was wrongly decided. No other ground was agitated before the appellant authority, the appellate court by means of the impugned judgment 2 dated 28.04.2025 dismissed the appeal. Challenging the said two orders, the present petition has been filed. 6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly, there was no written agreement in between the parties after the enforcement of the Act, 2021 and the respondent-landlord had in fact stated so in the application also. It is argued that on the strength of Section 4 (3) (b), the requirements were not fulfilled by the land-lord. It is further argued that in the light thereof, the application was not maintainable at the instance of the land-lord, for which the reliance is placed on Section 38 (2) of the Act, 2021. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted as to none of these grounds, as are being agitated, were ever taken before the either of the authorities, he argued that the question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings and if the proceedings are without inherent jurisdiction, a decree passed is a nullity and is non est. Reliance is placed on judgment in the case of Sushil Kumar Mehta Vs. Gobind Ram Bohra (1990) 1 SCC 193 emphasised on paragraph 26, reliance has also placed on similar judgement in the case of Jagmittar Sain Bhagat and others Vs. Director Health Services, Haryana (2013) 10 SCC 136, the third judgment relied on in the case of Chief Engineer Hydel Project and others Vs. Ravinder Nath and others (2008) 2 SCC 350, the fourth judgment relied on in the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal Limited and another(2005) 7 SCC 791, wherein Supreme Court had distinctly interpreted the jurisdictions, which are territorial, pecuniary and jurisdiction over subject matter, the Supreme Court held that while objection with regard to territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction had to be raised at the first instance, however, the lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any stage, even at the stage of execution. 8. On the strength of the said observation, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that he is entitled to take the question of jurisdiction at this stage, even if he has not taken the question of jurisdiction at an earlier stage. 9. The said argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, merits rejection for the reason, firstly, because no ground was taken either in the defence or even in the appeal, nothing could be demonstrated to indicate that the authority under the Act, 2021 did not have subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of the averments contained in the 3 application filed by the land-lord before the authority concerned, in the absence of any material that there was no subject matter jurisdiction, there is no reason to hold that the authority under the Act, 2021 did not have the jurisdiction. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Amit Gupta Vs. Gulab Chandra Kanodia, SCC Revision No. 158 of 2022 decided on 15.05.2023, however, the said judgment would have no applicability to the present case as, there was no pleading, which would have demonstrated as to whether the authority under the Act, 2021 had jurisdiction or the Suit would lie before the JSC court. This Court also notices that the petitioner as a tenant came in the occupation of the building covered under the Rent Control Act, 1972 since 1996 without any valid allotment letter, as such since the very inception, the tenancy of the petitioner was without any authority of law. In view thereof, no interference is called for. 10. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed. 11. The landlord shall, however, permit the petitioner to take away the goods lying in the premises, which has been sealed within a period of three days. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 Arvind Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench