Others v. The Additional District Magistrate

: Adya Prasad Tewari, Pradeep Kumar Pal : Arvind Srivastava, C.S.C., Mohammad Waseem Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Adya Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 / landlord and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondent no.1

2. Brief facts of the case are that the proceeding under Section 21 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P. Act No.16 of 2021") was initiated by respondent / landlord before the rent authority in respect to the shop no.12 for recovery of rent and possession of the shop. The aforementioned proceeding was registered as Rent Case No.4772 of 2022. In the aforementioned proceeding petitioners/ tenants filed their objection / written statement. Rent authority / Additional District Magistrate City, Varanasi vide order dated 19.4.2024 allowed the application / case filed under Section 21 (2) of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021. The appeal under Section 35 of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 filed on behalf of the petitioners / tenants was registered as Rent Appeal No.57 of 2024. The aforementioned rent appeal was heard by the Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.14, Varanasi and the same was dismissed vide order dated 11.8.2025. Hence this petition for the following relief: 2 A227 No. 10506 of 2025 "issue a order or direction to set aside the impugned order dated 19.4.2024 passed by respondent no.1 i.e. Rent Authority, Varanasi in Case No.4772 of 2022, Computerized Case No.D202214700004772, Rahil Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Muhammad Waish and others and the impugned order dated 11.8.2025 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.14 / Rent Tribunal, Varanasi, in Rent Appeal No.57 of 2024 arising out of the proceedings under Section 21 (2) of the U.P. Regulation and Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/ tenants submitted that the rent authority / rent tribunal has not decided the rent case / rent appeal in proper manner, as such, the impugned judgements cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that the petitioners/ tenants are in possession over the shop in question since 1991 but without considering the case of the petitioners in proper manner the order for eviction and arrears of rent has been passed by the rent authority against the petitioners. He further submitted that the impugned judgement should be set aside and application under Section 21 (2) of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 should be rejected.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.2/ landlord submitted that the rent authority as well as rent tribunal has properly exercised their jurisdiction in allowing the application under Section 21 (2) of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 framing issues / point of determination in the proceeding as well as affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. He further submitted that there is no scope for interference against the concurrent judgement passed by the rent authority as well as rent tribunal. He further submitted that the instant petition filed by the petitioners/ tenants should be dismissed.

5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 3 A227 No. 10506 of 2025

6. There is no dispute about the fact that the application under Section 21 (2) of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 filed by respondent/ landlord has been allowed by the rent authority and order has been maintained in rent appeal by the rent tribunal.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter perusal of points of determination framed in the rent appeal will be relevant, which are as under: "1- क्या प्षकारों के मध्य मकान मािलक और िकरायेदारी का संबंध है? 2-क्या इस न्यायालय को ्ऺस्तुत रेंट अपील व रेंट ्ऺािधकारी को ्ऺस्तुत रेंट वाद सुनने का ्षे्ऴािधकार है? 3- ्ऺत्यथर् रािहल ्षारा इस अिधिनयम, 2021 के अनुसार भूतल्षी ्ऺभाव से िकराये को अिधिनयम 2021 की धार 8 व 9 के अनुसार पुनरीि्षत िकया है जो िक गलत है?"

8. The rent authority as well as rent tribunal has considered the proceedings under Section 21 (2) of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 as well as Section 35 of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties and has recorded the finding of fact that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the authorities have jurisdiction to decide the rent case and rent appeal in the instant matter.

9. Considering the finding of fact recorded by both the Courts, there is no further scope of interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

10. The instant petition is dismissed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners/ tenants are granted six months time to vacate the shop in question subject to the following conditions: 4 A227 No. 10506 of 2025 (a). Petitioners/ tenants shall file an undertaking before the rent authority within period of three weeks from today to the effect that they will handover peaceful possession of the shop in question to the respondent / landlord. (b). In the undertaking, petitioner / tenant shall also state that they will not create any third party interest in the shop in question. (c). Petitioners / tenants shall pay monthly rent of the shop in question to the landlord regularly till the delivery of possession of the shop in question to the landlord as directed above. (d). In case of default of any of the condition mentioned above, protection granted by this Court shall automatically withdrawn. (e). In case shop in question is not vacated as per the undertaking given by the petitioners/ tenants, they shall be liable for contempt. September 24, 2025 Rameez (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

: Adya Prasad Tewari, Pradeep Kumar Pal : Arvind Srivastava, C.S.C., Mohammad Waseem Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Adya Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 / landlord and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondent no.1

2. Brief facts of the case are that the proceeding under Section 21 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P. Act No.16 of 2021") was initiated by respondent / landlord before the rent authority in respect to the shop no.12 for recovery of rent and possession of the shop. The aforementioned proceeding was registered as Rent Case No.4772 of 2022. In the aforementioned proceeding petitioners/ tenants filed their objection / written statement. Rent authority / Additional District Magistrate City, Varanasi vide order dated 19.4.2024 allowed the application / case filed under Section 21 (2) of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021. The appeal under Section 35 of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 filed on behalf of the petitioners / tenants was registered as Rent Appeal No.57 of 2024. The aforementioned rent appeal was heard by the Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.14, Varanasi and the same was dismissed vide order dated 11.8.2025. Hence this petition for the following relief: 2 A227 No. 10506 of 2025 "issue a order or direction to set aside the impugned order dated 19.4.2024 passed by respondent no.1 i.e. Rent Authority, Varanasi in Case No.4772 of 2022, Computerized Case No.D202214700004772, Rahil Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Muhammad Waish and others and the impugned order dated 11.8.2025 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.14 / Rent Tribunal, Varanasi, in Rent Appeal No.57 of 2024 arising out of the proceedings under Section 21 (2) of the U.P. Regulation and Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/ tenants submitted that the rent authority / rent tribunal has not decided the rent case / rent appeal in proper manner, as such, the impugned judgements cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that the petitioners/ tenants are in possession over the shop in question since 1991 but without considering the case of the petitioners in proper manner the order for eviction and arrears of rent has been passed by the rent authority against the petitioners. He further submitted that the impugned judgement should be set aside and application under Section 21 (2) of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 should be rejected.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.2/ landlord submitted that the rent authority as well as rent tribunal has properly exercised their jurisdiction in allowing the application under Section 21 (2) of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 framing issues / point of determination in the proceeding as well as affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. He further submitted that there is no scope for interference against the concurrent judgement passed by the rent authority as well as rent tribunal. He further submitted that the instant petition filed by the petitioners/ tenants should be dismissed.

5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 3 A227 No. 10506 of 2025

6. There is no dispute about the fact that the application under Section 21 (2) of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 filed by respondent/ landlord has been allowed by the rent authority and order has been maintained in rent appeal by the rent tribunal.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter perusal of points of determination framed in the rent appeal will be relevant, which are as under: "1- क्या प्षकारों के मध्य मकान मािलक और िकरायेदारी का संबंध है? 2-क्या इस न्यायालय को ्ऺस्तुत रेंट अपील व रेंट ्ऺािधकारी को ्ऺस्तुत रेंट वाद सुनने का ्षे्ऴािधकार है? 3- ्ऺत्यथर् रािहल ्षारा इस अिधिनयम, 2021 के अनुसार भूतल्षी ्ऺभाव से िकराये को अिधिनयम 2021 की धार 8 व 9 के अनुसार पुनरीि्षत िकया है जो िक गलत है?"

8. The rent authority as well as rent tribunal has considered the proceedings under Section 21 (2) of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 as well as Section 35 of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties and has recorded the finding of fact that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the authorities have jurisdiction to decide the rent case and rent appeal in the instant matter.

9. Considering the finding of fact recorded by both the Courts, there is no further scope of interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

10. The instant petition is dismissed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners/ tenants are granted six months time to vacate the shop in question subject to the following conditions: 4 A227 No. 10506 of 2025 (a). Petitioners/ tenants shall file an undertaking before the rent authority within period of three weeks from today to the effect that they will handover peaceful possession of the shop in question to the respondent / landlord. (b). In the undertaking, petitioner / tenant shall also state that they will not create any third party interest in the shop in question. (c). Petitioners / tenants shall pay monthly rent of the shop in question to the landlord regularly till the delivery of possession of the shop in question to the landlord as directed above. (d). In case of default of any of the condition mentioned above, protection granted by this Court shall automatically withdrawn. (e). In case shop in question is not vacated as per the undertaking given by the petitioners/ tenants, they shall be liable for contempt. September 24, 2025 Rameez (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad