Smt. Beena Rastogi and 2 Others vs Shri. Aseem Rastogi — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt. Beena Rastogi and 2 Others vs Shri. Aseem Rastogi — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed; no interference with the orders dated 31.05.2023 and 20.07.2024. Petitioners granted time upto 31.12.2025 to vacate, conditional on executing an affidavit undertaking within 15 days to hand over actual vacant possession to the landlord on or before 31.12.2025; on default, the time lapses and the respondent-landlord may execute the eviction order in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders dated 31.05.2023 and 20.07.2024, passed against the petitioners in proceedings under the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, call for interference, in view of the petitioners' contention that after enactment of the 2021 Act, all earlier-filed proceedings must continue in terms of the old act as prescribed under Section 46 of the Tenancy Act, 2021.

Court's answer

On the material on record, the landlord who had earlier initiated proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 had subsequently withdrawn the said proceedings and had initiated proceedings under the Tenancy Act, 2021.

Ratio / Principle

The record showed that the petitioners did not have any allotment order in their favour, and thus even in terms of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 their possession as a tenant was not in accordance with the Act.

Key takeaways

Considering the reasoning recorded in both the orders dated 20.07.2024 and 31.05.2023, no interference was called for, and the writ petition was dismissed.ratio¶10
At the petitioners' request, time was granted to vacate the premises upto 31.12.2025, subject to the petitioners executing an undertaking in the form of an affidavit within 15 days that they shall hand over the actual vacant premises to the landlord and no other else on or before 31.12.2025.ratio¶14
In the event of default in filing the undertaking, the time granted to vacate the premises upto 31.12.2025 shall come to an end, and the respondent-landlord would be at liberty to execute the said order of eviction in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Tenant eviction — U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 — Article 227 petition against orders dated 31.05.2023 and 20.07.2024 — plea that after enactment of the 2021 Act, earlier-filed proceedings must continue under the old Act per Section 46 of the Tenancy Act, 2021 — record showed the landlord had withdrawn his earlier proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 and initiated fresh proceedings under the 2021 Act, and that the petitioners had no allotment order, their possession as tenants not being in accordance with the 1972 Act even on its own terms — no interference warranted; writ petition dismissed — petitioners granted time upto 31.12.2025 to vacate, conditional on an affidavit undertaking within 15 days to hand over vacant possession; on default, the landlord may execute the eviction order in accordance with law.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29444

Court No. - 6

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4044 of 2024

Petitioner :- Smt. Beena Rastogi And 2 Others Respondent :- Shri. Aseem Rastogi Counsel for Petitioner :- Anupama Bhadauria Counsel for Respondent :- Amal Rastogi,Amal Rastogi

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

1 . Heard Miss. Anupama Bhadauria, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Amal Rastogi, learned Counsel for the respondent.

2 . The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.07.2024 as well as the order dated 31.05.2023 passed against the petitioners in terms of the provisions contained in U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021.

3 . The contention of the Counsel for the petitioners is that after the enactment of the Tenancy Act, 2021, all the proceedings, which were earlier filed, have to continue in terms of the old act as is prescribed under Section 46 of the Tenancy Act, 2021.

4 . The material on record reveals that the landlord, who had earlier initiated proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 had subsequently withdrawn the said proceedings and had initiated proceedings under the Tenancy Act, 2021. The record also shows that the petitioners did not have any allotment order in their favour and thus even in terms of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 their possession as a tenant was not in accordance with the Act.

5 . Considering the reasoning recorded in both the orders dated 20.07.2024 and 31.05.2023, no interference is called for. The writ petition is dismissed .

6 . After arguing the matter, the Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners may be granted some time to vacate the premises.

7 . The Counsel for the respondent leave it to the discretion of the Court.

8 . Considering the request made by the Counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are granted time to vacate the

premises upto 31.12.2025 subject to the petitioners executing an undertaking in the form of an affidavit within 15 days from today that they shall handover the actual vacant premise to the landlord and no other else on or before 31.12.2025.

9 . In the event of default in filing the undertaking, the time granted by this order to vacate the premise upto 31.12.2025 shall come to an end and the respondent-landlord would be at liberty to execute the said order of eviction in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 19.5.2025 akverma

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench