Disposed

Shakeel Ahmad v. Smt Champa Devi and 6 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2026WRIA/76/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A tenant sought quashing of a rent appeal upholding a release order under the U.P. Act 13 of 1972, arguing the landlord's need was not bona fide. The High Court upheld the appellate order but allowed the petitioner to remain until 30 June 2026 subject to an undertaking on continued rent payment, clearing dues, and handing over possession.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders upheld; their execution stayed till 30.06.2026 subject to petitioner's undertaking to vacate, pay rent, and clear electricity and utility dues.

Shakeel Ahmad vs Smt Champa Devi and 6 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 76 of 2026

Shakeel Ahmad

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Smt Champa Devi And 6 Others

¶7

		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Rajeev Kumar Prasad Tiwari	Mishra Rudra, Diwakar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Mohini Tiwari, Raj	Ravindra Kumar Singh

¶8

Court No. - 6

¶9

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard Sri Diwakar Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravindra Kumar Singh Raj, learned counsel for the private respondents.

¶11

The defendant has come up before this Court seeking quashing of the order dated 03.12.2025 passed in Rent Appeal No. 2 of 2017 under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction). Act , 1972 (in short ' U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972') whereby the release order passed in P.A. Case No. 157 of 2013 under Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 has been allowed vide judgment dated 06.04.2017.

¶12

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the need of the landlord is not bona fide. It was alleged that the landlord required the premises to expand his business as well as to accommodate unemployed members of the family.

¶13

It is urged that in the very same building, the landlord has 5 vacant shops which have not been put to use rather in order to evict the petitioner, the release application has been filed. It is thus urged that the need itself was not bonafide.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that the petitioner has been doing the business since decade and has acquired a

¶15

WRIA No. 76 of 2026

¶16

¶17

goodwill. He does not have any adequate or alternate accommodation and the comparative hardship will be in favour of the petitioner as he has to be uprooted rather no comparative hardship will be caused to the respondents. This aspect of the matter has not been considered appropriately by the Prescribed Authority or by the Appellate Authority, hence, the orders are bad.

¶18

Sri Raj, learned counsel for the private respondents has pointed out that the private respondents are engaged in business. There are number of members in the family who are unemployed and in order to expand the existing business as well as to accommodate the unemployed members of the family, the need has been setup which cannot be said to be bad in the eyes of law.

¶19

It has also been pointed out that the release application had been filed in the year 2013 and since then the petitioner has not made any attempt to look for an alternate accommodation. This in itself indicates that the petitioner has not made any genuine attempts to find an alternate accommodation and he cannot say for the aforesaid reasons that the comparative hardship is against the petitioner, coupled with the fact that the findings on bona fide need and comparative hardship is apparently a findings of fact which unless shown to be perverse may not be interfered in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶20

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of instructions submits that in case if some appropriate time is provided to vacate the premises, the ends of justice would be served.

¶21

It is in this view of the matter that some time was granted to the petitioner to examine the said issue and he has filed an undertaking of the petitioner himself which is taken on record.

¶22

It has been stated in the undertaking that the petitioner would vacate the shop in question latest by 30th June, 2026.

¶23

It has further been stated that the petitioner is paying a rent of Rs. 510/- per month to the respondents and he further undertakes that he will

¶24

WRIA No. 76 of 2026

¶25

¶26

continue to pay the rent till the time he occupies the premise and shall also clear the previous electricity dues which as per the counsel for the respondents is Rs. 1,03,698/- uptill December, 2025.

¶27

This aspect is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and he submits that the petitioner shall liquidate the same as well.

¶28

The petitioner has further stated that he will not damage or modify the structure and any outstanding bill of the public utility shall also be cleared before handing over the possession latest by 30th June, 2026.

¶29

Sri Raj, learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has no objection in case if time is granted for vacating the premises with the aforesaid conditions.

¶30

In view of the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid undertaking and it is directed that the orders impugned shall not be executed till 30th June, 2026 provided the petitioner abides by the undertaking which has been given in shape of an affidavit which is taken on record. Any violation thereof shall be construed as contempt of the order passed by the Court.

¶31

1. with the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of upholding the impugned orders except that they will not be executed upto the time granted by this order to the petitioner to vacate, in terms of the undertaking.

¶32

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶33

January 12, 2026

¶34

Asheesh

¶35

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

Shakeel Ahmad v. Smt Champa Devi and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakeel Ahmad v. Smt Champa Devi and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dcc Infra Project Ltd. Thru. Managing Director vs Commissioner Under Employee Compensation Act and Assistant Labour Commissioner Lko. and 5 Others

M/S Piscesia Power Transmission Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director, Vivek Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax and Registration Govt. Lko. and 2 Others

U.P. Sahkari Awas Nirman Evam Vitt Nigam Ltd. Thru. Managing Director vs Ram Kirti Singh Now Deceased Thru. Legal Heirs Ashok Kumar Singh and Others

Ashok Kumar Gupta vs Smt. Champa Devi and 6 Others

M/S Piscesia Power Transmission Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Vivek Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax and Registration Lko. and 2 Others

M/S Guru Kripa Construction and Suppliers Work Thru. Prop. Mr Krishna Kumar Verma vs the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki