Col. Satish C Tyagi vs Sanjay Kumar Singh And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 11805 ALL

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 11805 ALL
Judgement Date : 28 October, 2025

Allahabad High Court

Col. Satish C Tyagi vs Sanjay Kumar Singh And 3 Others on 28 October, 2025

Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:188784
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
WRIT - A No. - 15783 of 2025   
 
   Col. Satish C Tyagi    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Sanjay Kumar Singh And 3 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Pramod Kumar Pandey   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C., Nipun Singh   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 36
 
   
 
 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

1. Petitioner, before this Court, is a tenant of accommodation in question. The said accommodation was leased out by landlord-respondent nos. 3 and 4 after a lease deed was executed on 11.06.2022 which was for a period of 11 months. A suit for eviction and arrears of rent under Section 21(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 was filed. The said suit was allowed vide judgment dated 17.02.2025 against which an appeal under Section 35 of the Act of 2021 was filed which has been dismissed vide judgment dated 22.09.2025. The present writ petition assails both the orders passed by rent authority as well as appellate authority.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an advance of Rs.2 lac was given to respondent no. 3 for purchasing the flat in question. Certain renovation was also carried out and petitioner had incurred Rs.10 lac in the said renovation. It is further averred that petitioner was ready to purchase the flat and pay Rs.20 lac more but respondent nos. 3 and 4 had wrongly initiated proceedings under Section 21(2) of the Act of 2021 and have not executed a sale-deed and have adjusted the amount towards rent. Reliance has been placed upon the chat which has taken place between the parties which has not been considered by both the courts below.

3. Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent-landlord submits that an agreement was executed in May, 2022 between landlord-respondent and petitioner-tenant. According to him, without the said agreement, the entry of the petitioner in the society cannot be allowed as the said premises is of Army Welfare Housing Organisation at Phase IV, Twin Towers, Greater Noida. According to him, once the rent agreement was entered between the parties and was placed before RWA of Army Welfare Housing Organisation which is only way that entry of petitioner was possible in the rented accommodation. He further submits that no such agreement to sell was entered between the parties nor the intention of the respondent was to sell the property.

4. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

5. It is an undisputed fact that premises in question belongs to respondent nos. 3 and 4 who are owners. From the record, it appears that a lease agreement was entered between the parties way back in the year 2022 for a period of 11 months wherein it was agreed that a consideration amount of Rs.1,76,000/- was paid in advance being non-refundable for period 01.06.2022 to 31.04.2023. Both rent authority as well as appellate authority had recorded finding that lease agreement was summoned from RWA Society. The tenant had never raised any objection at the time when document was placed before the trial court nor such objection was made in appeal. The document placed before the rent authority as well as the appellate authority stood proved and a finding was recorded by both courts on the basis of rent agreement executed between the parties and order for eviction was passed.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that no case for interference is made out as the lease agreement entered between the parties is proved and and there is no basis holding it to be forged and not executed between the parties. The finding recorded by appellate court has not been assailed in the present writ petition.

7. Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

8. However, in the interest of justice, in case the execution proceedings has not concluded and the order passed by courts below has not been executed, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the flat in dispute for one month subject to following conditions:-

(a) The tenant-petitioner shall file an undertaking before court below that he shall hand over peaceful possession of the premises in question to the landlord-respondent on or before 30.11.2025;

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

(c) The tenant-petitioner shall pay entire decretal amount within a period of 10 days 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 of 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.