Vinay Kumar v. Court Of Addl. Dist. Magistrate, Lko. And Anor

Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Respondent :- Court Of Addl. Dist. Magistrate, Lko. And Anor Counsel for Petitioner :- Pritish Kumar, Amal Rastogi, Gaurav Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohammad Aslam Khan, Mohd. Talhi Siddiqui, Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Ram Pukar Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava and Sri Ram Pukar Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 24.07.2024 passed under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 whereby, an ex-parte order was passed directing the eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question as well as the order dated 04.05.2024 whereby, orders for execution of the earlier order dated 24.07.2024 was passed.

The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that even in terms of the application filed by the respondent-landlady, it was stated that there was an agreement, by virtue of which, the petitioner was a tenant of the premises in question and in absence of any written agreement, the proceedings before the rent control authority under the Tenancy Act, 2021 was not maintainable.

During the course of the argument, it has been informed that although, the petitioner had vacated the premises, however, the household goods are lying in part of the premises.

Considering the fact that an appeal is prescribed against the order dated 24.07.2024, I am not inclined to interfere on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.

The Counsel for the petitioner states that he has moved an application for recalling of the order dated 24.07.2024, which is pending and directions may be issued to decide the recall application.

The Counsel for the opposite party states that the household goods of the petitioner are lying in one room and despite the request, the petitioner is not removing the said goods. It is further argued that the petitioner has not paid rent of the premises despite the fact that the petitioner has claimed to be a tenant of the premises.

Considering the arguments raised at the bar and exercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, I direct the authority concerned to consider and decide the recall application filed by the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three months from today, after hearing the parties, however, before the application is decided, half of the outstanding rent shall be deposited by the petitioner before the ADM concerned for being transmitted to the landlady on her moving an appropriate application.

The petitioner would be at liberty to remove his goods, failing which, the ADM concerned shall appoint any person to take the custody of the goods lying in one of the rooms within one month from today.

The parties would be at liberty to avail such remedy as is available to them under law subject to the outcome of the recall application.