Smt. Priti Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

"(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondent No. 02/Rent Authority/Additional District Magistrate (Supply), District Kanpur Nagar to decide the recall application No. 6007 of 2025 (computer case No. D202503410006007) dated 01.05.2025 under section 34(8) of Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act-2021 (Annexure No. 03 to the writ petition) within specific period which is pending before the same.

¶12

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding to the parties concerned to maintain status quo on the spot and not to interfere in peaceful physical possession of the petitioner with regard to the house situated in gata No. 323Mi in Village Kalyanpur Kala, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District Kanpur Nagar, during the disposal of the recall application No. 6007 of 2025 (computer case No. D202503410006007) dated 01.05.2025 under section 34(8) of Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act-2021 (Annexure No. 03 to the writ petition) filed by the petitioner, pending before the respondent No. 02/Rent Authority/ Additional District Magistrate (Supply), District Kanpur Nagar during the pendency of the present writ petition before this Hon'ble Court."

¶13

2. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 09.09.2025 passed the following order:-

¶14

"1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Chand Nishad, learned standing

¶15

WRIA No. 12829 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

counsel for the state-respondent.

¶18

2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted petitioner is the daughter of deceased-Rakesh Tiwari, who was the owner of 1/2 share in the house in question. He submitted that the proceeding under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 has been initiated by the private respondents, impleading the petitioner's father, namely, Rakesh Tiwari as opposite party. He submitted that an ex parte order dated 20.9.2023 has been passed in the proceeding under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021, without any service of notice upon the deceased Rakesh Tiwari. He submitted that the father of petitioner has expired on 30.4.2024 but no steps have been taken by the private respondents in pursuance of the ex parte order dated 20.9.2023 passed by the Rent Authority. He submitted that as soon as the petitioner came to know about the order dated 20.9.2023, an application under Section 34(8) of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 has been filed for recalling the order dated 20.9.2023 along with prayer for condonation of delay. He submitted that the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 34(8) of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 is pending before the Rent Authority. He submitted that private respondents in collusion with the authorities, are taking steps to evict the petitioner from the house in question. He submitted that appropriate direction be issued to the Rent Authority to decide the recall application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 34(8) of the U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 and till the disposal of the recall application, status quo on spot be maintained as well as private respondents be restrained from interferring with the peaceful possession of the petitioner with respect to house in question. He submitted that petitioner is also depositing the house tax of the house in question and the payment receipts are annexed along with the instant petition.

¶19

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Respondent No.2/Rent Authority/Additional District Magistrate (Supply) District Kanpur Nagar is directed to decide the petitioner's Recall Case No.6007/2025 (Computerized Case No.D202503410006007), expeditiously, preferably within a period of 4 weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the order before the Rent

¶20

WRIA No. 12829 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

Authority, in accordance with law.

¶23

4. Put up this matter as fresh on 13.10.2025.

¶24

5. Till the next date of listing, the petitioner shall not be evicted from House No.144/3, Panki Road, Kalyanpur, Kanpur Nagar.

¶25

6. Learned standing counsel shall communicate this order to respondent no.2 forthwith.

¶26

7. Registrar (Compliance) is also directed to communicate this order to respondent no.2 within a week."

¶27

3. From perusal of the material on record, it transpires that the petitioner wants expeditious disposal of the recall application which is pending under Section 38(4) of the Act No. 16 of 2021.

¶28

4. As no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending, the writ petition is being disposed of, at the admission stage, without calling for counter affidavit or issuing notice to private respondents, with a direction upon respondent no. 2 to proceed with the matter and decide the recall application No. 6007 of 2025 (Computer Case No. D202503410006007) dated 01.05.2025 , under Section 34(8) of Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act-2021 as expeditiously as possible and within the time frame fixed by order dated 09.09.2025. In case, the said recall application has not been decided, the same shall be decided within next one month, from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶29

5. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶30

6. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the matter on merits.

¶31

October 13, 2025 V.S.Singh

¶32

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Priti Tripathi v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Priti Tripathi v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases