Allahabad High Court

1. Heard Shri Deepak Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Adnan Ahmad, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent and he has filed his Vakalatnama which is taken on record.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 04.08.2025 whereby the applications moved by the petitioner have been dismissed by the Appellate Authority constitution under the UPAct No.13 of 1972.

3. In order to appreciate the controversy, it will be appropriate to take note of certain background facts which have given rise in the present instant petition.

4. The petitioner is a tenant of the premises governed by the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 proceedings under Section 21(i)(a) UP Act No. of 1972 (in short the Act of 1972) was initiated by the respondent landlord. The release application came to be allowed on 13.01.2020 and the petitioner being aggrieved preferred a rent appeal under Section 22 of the Act of 1972. The said appeal came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on

08.10.2024. Thereafter the petitioner furnished an application for recall which too was dismissed on 28.05.2025. Thereafter the petitioner had approached this Court in petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India bearing No.4345 of 2025 wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by means of order dated 25.07.2025 had allowed the writ petition setting aside the orders dated 28.05.2025 and 08.10.2024 on the cost of 2 A227 No. 5411 of 2025 Rs.50,000/- with a strict stipulation that the said amount was to be paid to the landlord by the date fixed by the Court for the petitioner to appear before the appellate court on 04.08.2025 on 12.00 noon and the appeal was to be heard on day today basis, to be decided within 15 days.

5. The record further indicates that the petitioner did not comply with the order passed by the Court on 25.07.2025 and even though it is his case that he reached the Court on 04.08.2025 but late and he had moved applications seeking the indulgence of the appellate court to pass the appropriate orders clearing challan filed by the petitioner for deposit of Rs.50,000/-

6. Another application was moved indicating that though in terms of the order passed by the High Court he was required to be present before the Court at 12,00 noon but since it had been raining since last 24 hours, hence he was late by about half an hour and therefore the petitioner may be permitted to make sufficient compliance of the order passed by the writ court so that his appeal can be heard on merits.

7. It is in furtherance thereof that the appellate court taking note of the direction issued by the High Court including the applications moved by the petitioner and noticing the objection made by the landlord respondent rejected the said application. Now being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has again approached this Court.

8. A specific query was put to the counsel for the petitioner as to whether the amount of Rs.50,000/- which was imposed as cost on the petitioner has been paid, to which it was indicated that the amount has been paid to the learned counsel for the respondent in the Court itself this morning and this is admitted to Shri Ahmad learned counsel for the respondents.

9. As far as the compliance of the payment of cost is concerned, the same has already been made, now the issue as to whether the petitioner should be granted any indulgence especially being a tenant who has been misusing the liberty is to be seen.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also noting that it is not disputed by the respondents that on 04.08.2025 there were 3 A227 No. 5411 of 2025 rain and that the petitioner had reached the Court late by half an hour than the appointed time and also noticing that as far as the matter should be decided on merits, hence taking a holistic view this Court finds that it will be appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioner on strict terms.

11. Learned counsel for the respective parties have informed the Court that the appellate court where the appeal is pending, is now vacant. In this changed circumstance, this Court gives the following directions that the appeal of the petitioner bearing no.42 of 2020 shall be transferred from the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.18, Lucknow to the Court of District Judge, Lucknow for which the petitioner shall file a formal application alongwith the copy of this order before the District Judge, Lucknow by 12.09.2025. The matter shall stand transfer to the District Judge, Lucknow before whom the parties will appear on

15.09.2025 for hearing of the appeal and the District Judge Lucknow after hearing the parties concerned shall within a week thereafter decide the appeal on its own merits. It has also been informed that the petitioner has not been paid rent since 2019. Considering the aforesaid the petitioner shall also deposit a further sum of Rs.50,000/- by 15.09.2025 before the District Judge, Lucknow by demand draft favouring the respondent landlord which shall be paid to the respondents.

12. Neither of the parties will be entitled for adjournment on any reason and in case if the petitioner seeks to violate the aforesaid directions, the District Judge, Lucknow will be well within its right to proceed in the matter as per law so that the appeal is decided by 20.09.2025. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the District Judge Lucknow through Senior Registrar of this Court forthwith.

13. This matter shall come up before this Court on 23.09.2025, as fresh. September 10, 2025 (Jaspreet Singh,J.)

1. Heard Shri Deepak Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Adnan Ahmad, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent and he has filed his Vakalatnama which is taken on record.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 04.08.2025 whereby the applications moved by the petitioner have been dismissed by the Appellate Authority constitution under the UPAct No.13 of 1972.

3. In order to appreciate the controversy, it will be appropriate to take note of certain background facts which have given rise in the present instant petition.

4. The petitioner is a tenant of the premises governed by the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 proceedings under Section 21(i)(a) UP Act No. of 1972 (in short the Act of 1972) was initiated by the respondent landlord. The release application came to be allowed on 13.01.2020 and the petitioner being aggrieved preferred a rent appeal under Section 22 of the Act of 1972. The said appeal came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on

08.10.2024. Thereafter the petitioner furnished an application for recall which too was dismissed on 28.05.2025. Thereafter the petitioner had approached this Court in petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India bearing No.4345 of 2025 wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by means of order dated 25.07.2025 had allowed the writ petition setting aside the orders dated 28.05.2025 and 08.10.2024 on the cost of 2 A227 No. 5411 of 2025 Rs.50,000/- with a strict stipulation that the said amount was to be paid to the landlord by the date fixed by the Court for the petitioner to appear before the appellate court on 04.08.2025 on 12.00 noon and the appeal was to be heard on day today basis, to be decided within 15 days.

5. The record further indicates that the petitioner did not comply with the order passed by the Court on 25.07.2025 and even though it is his case that he reached the Court on 04.08.2025 but late and he had moved applications seeking the indulgence of the appellate court to pass the appropriate orders clearing challan filed by the petitioner for deposit of Rs.50,000/-

6. Another application was moved indicating that though in terms of the order passed by the High Court he was required to be present before the Court at 12,00 noon but since it had been raining since last 24 hours, hence he was late by about half an hour and therefore the petitioner may be permitted to make sufficient compliance of the order passed by the writ court so that his appeal can be heard on merits.

7. It is in furtherance thereof that the appellate court taking note of the direction issued by the High Court including the applications moved by the petitioner and noticing the objection made by the landlord respondent rejected the said application. Now being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has again approached this Court.

8. A specific query was put to the counsel for the petitioner as to whether the amount of Rs.50,000/- which was imposed as cost on the petitioner has been paid, to which it was indicated that the amount has been paid to the learned counsel for the respondent in the Court itself this morning and this is admitted to Shri Ahmad learned counsel for the respondents.

9. As far as the compliance of the payment of cost is concerned, the same has already been made, now the issue as to whether the petitioner should be granted any indulgence especially being a tenant who has been misusing the liberty is to be seen.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also noting that it is not disputed by the respondents that on 04.08.2025 there were 3 A227 No. 5411 of 2025 rain and that the petitioner had reached the Court late by half an hour than the appointed time and also noticing that as far as the matter should be decided on merits, hence taking a holistic view this Court finds that it will be appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioner on strict terms.

11. Learned counsel for the respective parties have informed the Court that the appellate court where the appeal is pending, is now vacant. In this changed circumstance, this Court gives the following directions that the appeal of the petitioner bearing no.42 of 2020 shall be transferred from the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.18, Lucknow to the Court of District Judge, Lucknow for which the petitioner shall file a formal application alongwith the copy of this order before the District Judge, Lucknow by 12.09.2025. The matter shall stand transfer to the District Judge, Lucknow before whom the parties will appear on

15.09.2025 for hearing of the appeal and the District Judge Lucknow after hearing the parties concerned shall within a week thereafter decide the appeal on its own merits. It has also been informed that the petitioner has not been paid rent since 2019. Considering the aforesaid the petitioner shall also deposit a further sum of Rs.50,000/- by 15.09.2025 before the District Judge, Lucknow by demand draft favouring the respondent landlord which shall be paid to the respondents.

12. Neither of the parties will be entitled for adjournment on any reason and in case if the petitioner seeks to violate the aforesaid directions, the District Judge, Lucknow will be well within its right to proceed in the matter as per law so that the appeal is decided by 20.09.2025. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the District Judge Lucknow through Senior Registrar of this Court forthwith.

13. This matter shall come up before this Court on 23.09.2025, as fresh. September 10, 2025 (Jaspreet Singh,J.)