Mukesh Kumar Sharma vs Sri Raj Kumar Goyal
2025 Latest Caselaw 12889 ALL

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 12889 ALL
Judgement Date : 21 November, 2025

Allahabad High Court

Mukesh Kumar Sharma vs Sri Raj Kumar Goyal on 21 November, 2025

Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:208699
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14433 of 2025   
 
   Mukesh Kumar Sharma    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Sri Raj Kumar Goyal    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Pankaj Agarwal   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
Shekhar Gangal   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 36
 
   
 
 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

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

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for record and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 30.8.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Aligarh in SCC Revision No. 38 of 2016 (Annexure-1) as well as order dated 27.7.2016 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Aligarh in SCC Suit No. 17/2002(Annexure-2), and allow the instant petition; and/or such other and further order be passed as is expedient in the interest of justice."

2. Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, at the very outset, states that he is giving up his challenge to the order dated 30.08.2025 passed in S.C.C. Revision No.38 of 2016 as well as order dated 27.07.2016 passed in S.C.C. Suit No.17 of 2002, and some time may be granted for vacating the shop in question.

3. Sri Agarwal, learned counsel further submits that already dispute in respect of parties has already attained finality by the orders of this Court dated 17.11.2025 in Matter Under Article 227 No.14130 of 2025. He further submits that his client is not contesting the said case, and he may be granted one year's time for vacating the shop in question.

4. Sri Shekhar Gangal, learned counsel appearing for landlord-respondent submits that the matter between the parties had already attained finality by the earlier judgment of this Court dated 17.11.2025. According to him, the shop in question has been sub-let by the tenant. He further submits that he has no objection, if some time is granted to the tenant for vacating the shop in question.

5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, this Court finds that it is an admitted case of the tenancy between the parties in dispute. As the tenant-petitioner has given up his challenge to the order impugned and has only payed for some time for vacating the shop in question, this Court grants one year's time to tenant-petitioner to vacate the shop in question with following conditions:-

(a) The tenant-petitioner shall file an undertaking before Court below that he shall hand over peaceful possession of the property in question to the landlord-respondent on or before 30.11.2026;

(b) The said undertaking shall be filed before the court below within two weeks from today;

(c) The tenant-petitioner shall pay entire decretal amount within a period of one month from today;

(d) In the undertaking, the tenant-petitioner shall also state that he will not create any interest in favour of the third party in the premises in dispute;

(e) It is made clear that in case of default of any of the conditions mentioned herein-above, the protection granted by this Court shall stand vacated automatically.