Disposed

Smt. Harcharan Kaur v. M/S Sadhna City Homes Pvt. Ltd. Gomti Nagar,Lko. Thru. Director Smt. Sadhna Agrawal

Allahabad HC8 May 2025A227/2236/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tenant challenged eviction decree and dismissal of SCC revision, but counsel did not press merits and sought time to vacate. The High Court allowed occupancy till 30 June 2026 subject to an undertaking, continued rent deposits, and directed return of Rs.30,000 security deposit on vacating.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Harcharan Kaur Vs M/S Sadhna City Homes Pvt. Ltd… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27131

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2236 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Harcharan Kaur

¶5

Respondent :- M/S Sadhna City Homes Pvt. Ltd. Gomti Nagar,Lko. Thru. Director Smt. Sadhna Agrawal Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi,Manoj Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent :- Anil Kumar Gupta,Smt. Ruchi Gupta

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

I.A. No.9 of 2025

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶9

The present application has been filed for substitution of the sole petitioner.

¶10

The application is allowed.

¶11

Let the necessary correction be carried out during the course of the day.

¶12

Order on Petition

¶13

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.12.2013 passed in SCC Suit No.84 of 2010, whereby an order of eviction and arrears of rent was passed as well as the judgement and order dated 14.02.2023, whereby the SCC Revision No.19 of 2014 was dismissed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is lacuna in the judgement specifically with regard to non-consideration of the security deposit made by the petitioner to the erstwhile land lord and in not granting the benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.

¶15

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that although Rent Control Act is applicable to the premises in question, however, no order of allotment was ever passed in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner was given the possession on the premises by virtue of two agreements of 11 months each. He, however, states that without pressing any of the arguments as raised above, he seeks some reasonable time to vacate the premises and prays that on account of the hardships faced by the petitioner, time of one and half years be granted to vacate the premises.

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondent states that the quantum of time sought is highly excessive and some reasonable time may be granted by this Court.

¶17

In view thereof, without going into the merits of the contention as only time has been sought, the present petition is disposed of holding that the petitioner would be entitled to occupy the shop in question till 30th June, 2026, subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking before the Executing Court within a period of two weeks in the form of an affidavit, undertaking to vacate the premises on or before 30th June, 2026 and to hand over the physical and vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent and to no one else on or before 30th June, 2026.

¶18

In the event, such an undertaking is filed, the execution against the petitioner shall remain stayed till 30th June, 2026. However, in case the undertaking as directed above is not filed within the time granted, the Executing Court would be at liberty to execute the decree in accordance with law within a period of four months.

¶19

The petitioner shall continue to deposit the current rent on the month to month basis before the Executing Court or tender the same to the respondent through banking channels.

¶20

The amount of Rs.30,000/- as security deposit shall be returned to the petitioner when the premises is vacated.

¶21

Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Ashutosh

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Harcharan Kaur v. M/S Sadhna City Homes Pvt. Ltd. Gomti Nagar,Lko. Thru. Director Smt. Sadhna Agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Harcharan Kaur v. M/S Sadhna City Homes Pvt. Ltd. Gomti Nagar,Lko. Thru. Director Smt. Sadhna Agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tripti Auto Garage Thru. Propriter Shashi Kant Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Co-Op. Societies

Smt. Annu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Smt.Mamta Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. and Another

Smt. Maya Devi W/O Late Sri Rajendra Prasad Vs District Magistrate Distt. Lakhimpur Kheri

Reena Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Food and Civil Supply Lko. and 5 Others

Shah Alam Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others