HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6259 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Aman Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 16.07.2025, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Lakhimpur Kheri in S.C.C. Revision No.1/2025, whereby the revision of the petitioner was dismissed, as a result, the order passed by the S.C.C. Court dated 10.12.2024 in S.C.C. Suit No.8/2024 has been affirmed. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the proceedings were initiated under the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (for short, 'the Tenancy Act, 2021') which was not maintainable as the said proceedings ought to have been initiated before the Additional District Magistrate in terms of the Tenancy Act, 2021. Thus, the proceedings before the S.C.C. Court were without jurisdiction. 4. It is urged that a specific application was moved raising the aforesaid plea regarding lack of jurisdiction before the S.C.C. Court, however, the Civil Judge (Senior Division) acting as a S.C.C. Court rejected the said application and found that the proceedings were maintainable before the said Court and in terms of the Tenancy Act, 1921, the said order was assailed in a revision which also met the same fate and in the aforesaid circumstances it is urged that the matter is required consideration by this Court. 5. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aman Kumar Shrivastav Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dinesh Kumar @ Guddu .....Petitioner(s) Usha Sharma And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) material on record, a specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to the fact whether an agreement of the tenancy between the petitioner and the respondents was in writing and registered to which it was answered in negative. 6. At this stage, the Court is reminded the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Amit Gupta v. Gulab Chandra Kanodia in S.C.C.Revision No.158 of 2022, dated on 15.05.2023, whereby entire Scheme of the Tenancy Act, 1921 vis-a-vis the suits filed under the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 was considered and in the said decision, it was clearly mentioned that in case if the agreement is not registered in terms of the Tenancy Act, 1921, the proceedings before the S.C.C. suit are clearly maintainable. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner though made a valiant attempt to distinguish the said judgment, however, the fact remains that the proposition has been settled and it is not disputed that the agreement between the parties is not registered, the same is also taken note of by the two Courts and the view taken cannot be said to be erroneous or without jurisdiction, hence, in light of the aforesaid settled proposition, this Court finds that the instant petition cannot be entertained and is accordingly dismissed. October 30, 2025 Rakesh/- A227 No. 6259 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench