The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in Mahesh Chand (Dead) Through LRs v. Brijesh Kumar & Ors. deals with a dispute that spanned over five decades, revolving around the jurisdiction of civil courts versus revenue courts in eviction proceedings concerning land used for non-agricultural purposes. At its heart, the case questioned whether land leased for commercial activity—setting up a petrol pump—remains “agricultural land” unless formally declared non-agricultural under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (UPZALR Act).
The Court’s decision clarifies the scope of civil jurisdiction, the applicability of Section 143 UPZALR Act, and the importance of recognising subsequent developments in long-standing litigation.
Case Title: Mahesh Chand (Dead) Through LR(S) v. Brijesh Kumar & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 10256 of 2025
Bench: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan
Date of Judgment: 19 August 2025
Factual Background
Tenancy Agreement (1970)
- On 31 July 1970, the appellant-landlord, Mahesh Chand, entered into a registered tenancy agreement with the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents (nos. 1 to 3).
- The land was leased at ₹150 per month. Importantly, the lease explicitly stated the purpose: setting up an Indian Oil petrol pump.
Failure to Pay Rent (1972 onwards)
- The tenants paid rent only up to 30 June 1972. Thereafter, they defaulted.
- The landlord filed a civil suit in 1974 for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent.
Objection on Jurisdiction (1976)
- The tenants claimed the land was “agricultural” and hence only the Revenue Court had jurisdiction.
- The Trial Court rejected this objection on 14 August 1976, noting the land had been leased for a commercial purpose.
- The order was not challenged further.
Trial Court’s Decree (1981)
On 30 November 1981, the Trial Court decreed eviction and arrears of rent in favour of the landlord.
First Appellate Court (1992)
- The tenants appealed.
- The Appellate Court reversed the decree, holding that since the land had not been declared non-agricultural under Section 143 UPZALR Act, civil courts lacked jurisdiction.
- The landlord’s appeal for enhanced mesne profits was dismissed.
High Court (2024)
- In Second Appeal No. 1623 of 1992, the Allahabad High Court partly allowed the appeal on 15 February 2024.
- It set aside the Appellate Court’s decree but directed return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before the competent forum, citing lack of jurisdiction.
Subsequent Developments
- During pendency, approval under Section 143 UPZALR Act was granted on 10 December 1975, and final declaration of non-agricultural status was made on 14 March 1986 by the Deputy Collector, Khurja.
This declaration attained finality, but neither the First Appellate Court nor the High Court considered it.
Appeal to Supreme Court (2025)
The landlord’s legal representatives approached the Supreme Court against the High Court judgment.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
The following central questions arose:
- Jurisdictional Issue: Whether civil courts had jurisdiction over disputes concerning land leased for non-agricultural purposes when a formal declaration under Section 143 was absent at the time of filing the suit.
- Effect of Section 143 Declaration: Whether subsequent declaration of land as non-agricultural during pendency of litigation impacts jurisdiction.
- Estoppel Against Tenant: Whether tenants who knowingly used land for commercial purposes can later dispute its character as agricultural to evade eviction.
- Validity of Non-registration: Whether absence of registration of Section 143 declaration under Section 145 rendered it ineffective.
Arguments
Appellant (Landlord)
- Commercial use since inception: The land was leased in 1970 specifically for a petrol pump, hence agricultural character was irrelevant.
- Subsequent declaration: Land was declared non-agricultural on 14 March 1986, during pendency of appeal. As appeals are continuation of suits, courts must consider subsequent events.
- Estoppel: Tenants, having taken permissions for commercial use, cannot later deny the land’s non-agricultural character.
- Rent default: Respondents admitted paying rent only till June 1972. Payment to a third party was irrelevant.
Respondents (Tenants)
- No declaration at suit filing: On the date of suit (1974), no Section 143 declaration existed, making the suit non-maintainable.
- Registration requirement: Declaration without registration under Section 145 UPZALR Act was a “waste paper.”
- Tenant rights: Claimed possible ownership rights under UPZALR Act provisions.
- Support of High Court view: Argued return of plaint was justified.
Observations of the Supreme Court
Continuity of Proceedings
The Court reaffirmed that appeals are continuation of suits. Any material change during litigation—especially concerning jurisdiction—must be considered to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.
Commercial Use of Land
From 1970 onwards, the land was leased exclusively for a petrol pump.
Thus, the respondents were estopped from disputing its non-agricultural character.
Effect of Section 143 Declaration
The declaration dated 14 March 1986 attained finality. On the date of the First Appellate Court’s decision (1992) and High Court’s decision (2024), the land had already been declared non-agricultural.
Hence, jurisdiction of civil court was established.
Registration under Section 145
The duty of registration lies with the Assistant Collector, not the landowner.
Non-registration cannot nullify a valid declaration under Section 143.
Error of Lower Courts
Both the Appellate Court and High Court failed to take judicial notice of the declaration during pendency, leading to erroneous dismissal and return of plaint.
Decision
- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court judgment.
- The case was remitted to the First Appellate Court to decide on merits within six months, considering the litigation had already dragged for over 50 years.
- Pending applications were disposed of without costs.
Analysis and Significance
- Clarification on Jurisdiction: The Court clarified that civil courts retain jurisdiction once land is declared non-agricultural, even if such a declaration occurs during litigation. This prevents tenants from exploiting procedural technicalities to defeat substantive justice.
- Doctrine of Subsequent Events: The judgment reinforces the principle that courts must consider subsequent events affecting jurisdiction or rights, especially in protracted disputes. This avoids unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings and wastage of judicial resources.
- Tenant Estoppel: By emphasising estoppel against tenants, the Court strengthened landlord rights where tenants knowingly lease property for commercial use but later challenge jurisdiction by invoking agricultural status.
- Administrative Accountability: The Court also highlighted that non-registration under Section 145 is an administrative omission, not a substantive flaw. Landowners cannot be penalised for lapses by revenue officers.
- Long-Drawn Litigation: The case illustrates the consequences of prolonged litigation, spanning over five decades. The Supreme Court’s direction for disposal within six months underscores the need for expeditious justice.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Mahesh Chand v. Brijesh Kumar resolves a longstanding jurisdictional conflict under the UPZALR Act. It establishes that once land leased for commercial purposes is declared non-agricultural—even during litigation—civil courts regain jurisdiction, and tenants cannot hide behind procedural loopholes.
The decision balances procedural rigour with substantive justice, ensuring that technicalities do not override rightful claims. It will serve as a guiding precedent in tenancy disputes where the nature of the land is contested under special statutes.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams