Short Summary
The petitioner, a temple/trust entity, filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Rent Tribunal that set aside the Rent Authority's order allowing its impleadment in eviction proceedings under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021. The petitioner had sought impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC to dispute the landlord's title over the premises. The Court held that proceedings under Section 21 of the Act are confined to adjudication of landlord-tenant disputes and cannot be expanded to adjudicate complex title questions, and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.
Detailed Summary
The petitioner, Murti Markandeshwar Ji Maharaj Gopal Ki Bagiya City Jhansi, filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, challenging the order dated 13.03.2026 passed by the Rent Tribunal in Rent Appeal No. 05 of 2026 (Smt. Jyoti Gangwani vs. Vinod Rawat & another). The respondents are Smt. Jyoti Gangwani and Another. The Rent Tribunal had allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent-landlord and set aside the order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Rent Authority in Rent Case No. 110 of 2024, which had permitted the petitioner's impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure in eviction proceedings initiated under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021.
The petitioner sought impleadment in the rent proceedings claiming to be a third party with an independent title over the premises in question, essentially to dispute the ownership and title of the respondent-landlord. The Rent Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 21(2) of the Act of 2021 are confined to adjudication of landlord-tenant disputes and are limited to the grounds pleaded in support of eviction. The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner, being a third party asserting an independent title, was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the rent proceedings, and that title disputes fall wholly outside the scope of such proceedings.
The petitioner's counsel before the High Court was unable to dispute the settled legal position that proceedings under Section 21(2)(b) of the Act of 2021 do not contemplate adjudication of complicated questions relating to title or ownership, and that a third party claiming an independent right adverse to the landlord cannot insist upon being impleaded in eviction proceedings merely to canvass title questions.
The Court applied the settled legal position that the statutory scheme of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 confines proceedings under Section 21 to adjudication of disputes arising out of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant. The Court reasoned that questions relating to title or ownership cannot be raised through an application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC, as such adjudication lies beyond the statutory jurisdiction of the Rent Authority. A person claiming an independent right or title adverse to the landlord cannot enlarge the scope of eviction proceedings or invite the Rent Authority to adjudicate ownership disputes; such disputes must be agitated before the competent civil court.
The Court further noted that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is confined to ensuring that subordinate courts and tribunals act within their jurisdiction, and interference is not warranted unless the impugned order suffers from patent lack of jurisdiction, manifest perversity, or an error apparent resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. Finding no such infirmity in the impugned order, the Court held that the Rent Tribunal had correctly appreciated the nature and scope of proceedings under the Act of 2021. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in other matters before Allahabad High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Murti Markandeshwar Ji Maharaj Gopal Ki Bagiya City Jhansi vs Smt. Jyoti Gangwani And Another is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
State Of Himachal Pradesh & AnrvsM/S Ech Ess Builders
The State of Himachal Pradesh and another challenged the judgment dated 09.08.2024 of the District Judge, Kinnaur, which had dismissed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against an arbitral award dated 05.12.2019 in a construction contract dispute with M/s Ech Ess Builders. The High Court held that since the dispute was a 'commercial dispute' under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the District Judge was not designated as a commercial court at the time the objections were filed on 17.07.2020, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The appeal was disposed of by setting aside the District Judge's judgment and directing return of the objections for presentation before the appropriate forum.
Atul Bhaleraav PatilvsState Of Gujarat & Ors.
The applicant filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash FIR No.11191037211559 of 2021 registered at Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad, for offences under Sections 51, 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957, arising from seizure of duplicate Honda two-wheeler accessories bearing counterfeit Honda stickers. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the application, holding that a prima facie case of copyright infringement was disclosed and that the remedies under the Copyright Act operate independently of the Trade Marks Act.
Sanjeet PrakashvsThe State Of Bihar
This is an anticipatory bail application filed by Sanjeet Prakash and Abhishek Kumar, directors of Glowline Poly Plast Pvt. Ltd., in connection with Parsa Bazar P.S. Case No. 246 of 2026 registered for offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 303(2), 324(4), 352, 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The case arose from allegations by Usha Polytubes that the petitioners' company was manufacturing and selling PVC pipes bearing the counterfeit 'Usha Gold' trademark. The Patna High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, directing that the petitioners be enlarged on bail upon arrest or surrender within eight weeks, subject to furnishing bail bonds and conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Md. Gyas Alam @ Gyas AlamvsThe State Of Bihar
The petitioner, Md. Gyas Alam, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered for offences under the Copyright Act, the Trade Marks Act, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, arising from the alleged manufacture and sale of counterfeit lubricant products at a godown in Nawada. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated merely because he was the brother of co-accused Md. Niyaz, the actual proprietor of the firm from whose premises the counterfeit goods were recovered. The Patna High Court, considering the nature of the accusation and the petitioner's clean antecedent, allowed the anticipatory bail application subject to conditions.
Sh Shashi Bhushan & OrsvsState Of Delhi & Ors
The petitioners (10 in number, led by Mr. Shashi Bhushan) filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No. 0896/2022 registered at P.S. Sadar Bazar under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, alleging stocking and sale of counterfeit products bearing infringing marks. The parties entered into a compromise deed dated 27.07.2026, and the court, applying the principles laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom, holding that the non-compoundable offences were essentially against the rights of the IP proprietor and were of a commercial/civil character.
State of Himachal Pradesh & OrsvsNitin Sonkhla
The State of Himachal Pradesh and others filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the District Judge's dismissal of their Section 34 objections against an arbitral award in favor of contractor Nitin Sonkhla. The dispute arose from a road construction contract that was rescinded after the contractor failed to complete the work within the stipulated time. The High Court set aside the District Judge's judgment on the ground that the District Judge was not designated as a 'commercial court' under Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 at the time of filing or adjudicating the objections, and therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the commercial dispute.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.