Syed Masroor Ali @ Raja vs Sri Naved Hamid Khan

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 13477 of 2025

¶3

Syed Masroor Ali @ Raja

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
Sri Naved Hamid Khan	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Amit Singh, Mohd. Zuheib Ali Khan, Yusuf Uz Zaman Safwi
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Anurag Srivastava, Kabir Ahmad Khan

¶6

Court No. - 6

¶7

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶8

Civil Misc. Application bearing I.A. No.2 of 2026.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶10

The instant application has been moved seeking extension of time.

¶11

To put the matter in a perspective, the record would indicate that on 20.11.2025, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following order, which reads as under:-

¶12

"Present petition has been preferred with following main prayer:-

¶13

"i) issue or pass a writ, direction, and/or order in the nature of certiorari quashing he order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Learned Rent Tribunal, Lucknow/Additional District Judge PC ACt No. IV, dismissing the Misc. Civil Appeal (Rent Appeal) No. 271 of 2023 titled as "Masroor Ali alias Raja Vs. Naved Ahmad Khan" and the order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the learned Rent Authority/A.D.M. City (East) Lucknow in Case No. 3124/2022 (Computerized No. D202240160003124) titled as "Naved Ahmad Khan Vs. Masor Ali lias Raja" which are annexed as annexure no. 1 and 2 to this writ petition."

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the tenant in the premises and the petitioner does not want to argue this case on merit but wants some time to be given for vacating the premises as the

¶15

WRIA No. 13477 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

execution proceedings are going on.

¶18

On the other hand learned counsel for the caveator respondent has submitted that if the petitioner is ready to vacate the premises and wants some time then one month' time may be granted to him for vacating the premises.

¶19

In reply thereto, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a month period is very short period to search another premises and after some argument, learned counsel for the parties have agreed that three months time may be granted for vacating the premises from today.

¶20

As such, the petitioner is granted three months time for vacating the premises in dispute or subject matter in the appeal within a period of three months i.e. by 20.02.2026.

¶21

List this case in the week commencing 23.02.2026, as fresh."

¶22

In furtherance of the said order, the petitioner had undertaken before the Court to vacate the premises by 20.02.2026.

¶23

It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the matter was listed on 23.02.2026 as fresh.

¶24

On 23.02.2026, none had put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner and the record revealed that the petitioner had filed an application seeking extension of time on 12.02.2026 and noticing the same, this Court on 23.02.2026 had passed the following order, which reads as under:-

¶25

"1. None appears for the petitioner. Shri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent is present.

¶26

It has been pointed out that the petitioner had given an undertaking before the Court for vacating the premises in question on 20.02.2026, however, the premises in question has not yet been vacated and further it has been pointed out that the petitioner has moved an application seeking extension of time.

¶27

Be that as it may, since there is none to press the application or the petition, accordingly, list this matter on 25.02.2026, as fresh.

¶28

WRIA No. 13477 of 2025

¶29

3

¶30

Shri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent shall inform to the learned counsel for the petitioner of the order passed today, in writing. In case, if none appears on the next date, appropriate orders would be passed."

¶31

Today, Shri Yusuf Uz Zaman Safwi, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner and submits that an attempt was made by the petitioner to look for an accommodation, however, the same could not be found and, therefore, extension of time has been sought also indicating that the holy month of Ramadan is underway and in the given circumstances, time be allowed to vacate the premises preferably after the said Ramadan is over.

¶32

Shri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent gracefully submitted that in case if the petitioner vacates the premises in question by 31.03.2026, he shall have no objection.

¶33

Considering the aforesaid, time to vacate the premises in question is extended till 31.03.2026 as that would also take care of the fact that Ramadan would be over and the petitioner would have some more breathing time to vacate the premises, however, this would be subject to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- as security before this Court in the next three days i.e. 27.02.2026 . In case, if the said amount is not deposited, the petitioner shall not be entitled the benefit of the extension and it will be open for the respondent to proceed in accordance with law. However, in case, if the said amount is deposited, then the time granted to the petitioner shall be extended till 31.03.2026.

¶34

List this matter on 02.04.2026 as fresh for compliance .

¶35

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶36

February 25, 2026

¶37

Rakesh/-

¶38

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Syed Masroor Ali @ Raja v. Sri Naved Hamid Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Masroor Ali @ Raja v. Sri Naved Hamid Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashwani Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Manish Tiwari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Constable Fireman Vijay Pal and 6 Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 9 Others

Manish Tiwari and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Raghunandan Sharma vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Bhoopendra vs the State of U.P. and 4 Others