Disposed¶32

Rakesh Yadav v. Pankaj Mohan and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Sept 2025WRIA/13155/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Expedited disposal of execution proceedings; Section 36(1) Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021; Execution Case No. 3385 of 2024 / D202415060003385; Additional Collector Administration / Rent Authority, Azamgarh; eviction order 27.8.2024; execution pending since 18.11.2024; three-month deadline directive; Periyammal vs. V. Rajamani 2025 SCC OnLine SC 507; Rahul S. Shah v. Jindendra Kumar Gandhi (2021) 6 SCC 418; six-month execution guideline Para 42.12; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Prayer acceded: the Additional Collector Administration / Rent Authority (Executing Court), Azamgarh directed to proceed with and decide Execution Case No. 3385 of 2024, Computerized Case No. D-202415060003385, in the light of the Apex Court dictum, within three months from receipt of certified copy of the order.

Rakesh Yadav vs Pankaj Mohan and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the court concerned (Additional Collector Administration / Rent Authority, District Azamgarh) should be directed to decide Execution Case No. 3385 of 2024, Computer Case No. D202415060003385, under Section 36(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, pending since 18.11.2024, expeditiously.

¶8

Court's answer

The Executing Court is directed to proceed with Execution Case No. 3385 of 2024, Computerized Case No. D-202415060003385 (Rakesh Vs. Pankaj Mohan) and decide it in the light of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad [Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.] | WRIT - A No. 13155 of 2025 | Decided October 9, 2025 | Rakesh Yadav v. Pankaj Mohan & 2 Others. Petitioner sought a direction to the Additional Collector Administration / Rent Authority, District Azamgarh to decide Execution Case No. 3385 of 2024 (Computer Case No. D202415060003385) under Section 36(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, pending since 18.11.2024, following an eviction order dated 27.8.2024 against which respondent no. 1 filed no appeal. Relying on Periyammal vs. V. Rajamani, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 507 (06.03.2025) and the guidelines in Rahul S. Shah v. Jindendra Kumar Gandhi, (2021) 6 SCC 418 (including the Para 42.12 mandate that execution proceedings be completed within six months), the Court directed the Executing Court to decide the execution case in the light of the Apex Court dictum within three months from receipt of certified copy of the order; writ petition disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 13155 of 2025

¶3

Rakesh Yadav

¶4

.....Petitioner(s) Versus Pankaj Mohan And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Avadhesh Singh, Vijay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶5

Court No. - 36

¶6

HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

¶7

1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer;

¶8

"Direct the court concerned i.e. Additional Collector Administration /Rent Authority, District Azamgarh to decide the Execution Case No. 3385 of 2024 Computer Case No. D202415060003385 (Rakesh Vs. Pankaj Mohan) under Section 36(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 pending since 18.11.2024 in the Court of Additional Collector Administration, Azamgarh."

¶9

It is contended that petitioner had filed suit for eviction against the respondent no. 1 in which eviction order was passed on 27.8.2024. In paragraph no. 6 of petition it has been stated that against the eviction order no appeal has been preferred by the respondent no. 1. An Execution Case No. 3385 of 2024 has been filed under Section 36 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 on 18.11.2024, which is pending consideration. The sole prayer made in writ petition for expeditious disposal of the said case.

¶10

Recently, the Apex Court, on 06.03.2025, in Periyammal vs. V. Rajamani, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 507 had held that the execution proceedings should be concluded expeditiously considering the earlier judgment of the Apex Court rendered in case of Rahul S. Shah v. Jindendra Kumar Gandhi reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418 . Relevant paragraphs are extracted hereasunder:-

¶11

72. Before we close this matter, we firmly believe that we should say something as

¶12

WRIA No. 13155 of 2025

¶13

¶14

regards the long and inordinate delay at the end of the Executing Courts across the country in deciding execution petitions.

¶15

73. It is worthwhile to revisit the observations in Rahul S. Shah (supra) wherein this Court has provided guidelines and directions for conduct of execution proceedings. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced below:

¶16

42. All courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall mandatorily follow the below mentioned directions:

¶17

42.1. In suits relating to delivery of possession, the court must examine the parties to the suit under Order 10 in relation to third-party interest and further exercise the power under Order 11 Rule 14 asking parties to disclose and produce documents, upon oath, which are in possession of the parties including declaration pertaining to third-party interest in such properties.

¶18

***

¶19

42.5. The court must, before passing the decree, pertaining to delivery of possession of a property ensure that the decree is unambiguous so as to not only contain clear description of the property but also having regard to the status of the property.

¶20

***

¶21

42.8. The court exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 or under Order 21 CPC , must not issue notice on an application of third party claiming rights in a mechanical manner. Further, the court should refrain from entertaining any such application(s) that has already been considered by the court while adjudicating the suit or which raises any such issue which otherwise could have been raised and determined during adjudication of suit if due diligence was exercised by the applicant.

¶22

42.9. The court should allow taking of evidence during the execution proceedings only in exceptional and rare cases where the question of fact could not be decided by resorting to any other expeditious method like appointment of Commissioner or calling for electronic materials including photographs or video with affidavits.

¶23

42.10. The court must in appropriate cases where it finds the objection or

¶24

WRIA No. 13155 of 2025

¶25

¶26

resistance or claim to be frivolous or mala fide, resort to sub-rule (2) of Rule 98 of Order 21 as well as grant compensatory costs in accordance with Section 35A.

¶27

***

¶28

4 2.12. The executing court must dispose of the execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay.

¶29

_* (Emphasis supplied)_**

¶30

74. The mandatory direction contained in Para 42.12 of Rahul S. Shah (supra) requiring the execution proceedings to be completed within six months from the date of filing, has been reiterated by this Court in its order in Bhoj Raj Garg v. Goyal Education and Welfare Society, Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 19654 of 2022.

¶31

In view of the said fact, the Executing Court is hereby directed to proceed with the Execution Case No. 3385 of 2024, Computerized Case No. D-202415060003385 (Rakesh Vs. Pankaj Mohan) and decide the same in the light of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶32

Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶33

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)

¶34

October 9, 2025 Shekhar

¶35

Digitally signed by :- SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rakesh Yadav v. Pankaj Mohan and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Yadav v. Pankaj Mohan and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti vs Controlling Authority Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 Assistant Labour Commisioner Bareilly and 5 Oth

Asad Ullah vs Piyush Verma, Director Printing and Stationery

Farendra Singh Tomar vs Sri Deepak Kumar, Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate and 2 Others

Arun Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Juganoo Rai vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Padmawati Devi vs State of U.P. and 19 Others