[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Veena Gupta vs Aruna Singh on 2 April, 2026
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:23093
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1502 of 2026
Veena Gupta
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Aruna Singh
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Ratnesh Chandra, Abhay Pratap Singh, Ajit Verma
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Court No. - 7
HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
1. Heard Sri Ratnesh Chandra, Advocate, who appeared alongwith Sri Abhay Pratap Singh, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):-
"i. Set aside the order dated 12/02/2026 passed by the Ld. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Lucknow, in Execution Case No.44/2024, titled as Aruna Singh versus Veena Gupta, a Certified Copy of which is contained in Annexure 1 to this petition.
ii. Allow the application C-20, dated 23/09/2025, filed by the Petitioner/Judgment-Debtor before the Ld. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Lucknow, in Execution Case No.44/2024, titled as Aruna Singh versus Veena Gupta, a copy of which is contained in Annexure No.2 to this petition.
iii. Direct the Ld. Execution Court, i.e., the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Lucknow, to adjust the amount of Rs.1,45,000/- while calculating the decretal amount in terms of the Judgment and Decree dated 07/08/2024, passed in SCC Suit No.36 of 2016: Aruna Singh versus Veena Gupta."
3. Considered the following facts of the case, which have been brought to the notice of this Court.
(i) SCC Suit No. 36/2016 (Aruna Singh w/o Late Jagroop Singh vs. Smt. Veena Gupta w/o Anand Gupta) seeking decree of eviction was allowed vide judgment dated 07.08.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 21, Lucknow. The relevant portion of the judgment dated 07.08.2024 is extracted hereunder:-
"????
?????? ?? ??? ??????????? ?? ??????? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ???
??????????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???????? ????? ??? K-1, K-2 K-3 ?? ?? ????? ?? ???????? ?????, ??????????, ????-???????, ????-???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ????
??????????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?????? 2,16,000 ????? ?????? ??? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??????????? ?? ??? ??? 6,000/- ????? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??????????? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??????????? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??????????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ???????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? 7% (??? ???????) ??????? ?????? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?????
?? ????? ??? ??????????? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ??????, ??? ??? ??, ??????? ??? ???????? ?? ???????
???? ?? ??????? ? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????????? ?? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ???"
(ii) The judgment dated 07.08.2024 was impeached by the petitioner/Veena Gupta, who was defendant in the aforesaid suit, by means of S.C.C. Revision No. 15 of 2024 (Veena Gupta vs. Aruna Singh). This revision was dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 08.07.2025, which reads as under:-
"1. Heard Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Avinash Chandra, learned counsel for the opposite party and perused the record.
2. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the judgment and order dated 07.08.2024 passed by JSCC court.
3. The facts in brief are that the respondent-landlady had instituted a suit for rent and ejectment in respect of the property let out to the revisionist being Shop No. K-1, K-2 and K-3, given on rent, it was alleged that despite service of notice, the revisionist has neither vacated the premises nor has paid the arrears of rent. The revisionist had put in appearance and had defended the suit.
4. Based upon the pleadings as many as four issues of determination were made by the JSCC court. With regard to the first issue whether the relationship of the land-lord and tenant existed or not? The JSCC Court recorded that in view of admission of the defendant, the relationship of the land-lord and tenant existed. As regards the issue No.2 with regard to service of notice, once again it was recorded that the defendant in her written statement had admitted the service of the notice and had also given a reply to the said notice, thus it was found that the notice was duly served. With regard to issue No.3, pertaining to arrears of rent, the JSCC court recorded, the own admission of the revisionist in her written statement that an amount of Rs. 3,48,000/- was due and payable out of which only Rs. 51,188/- was deposited in the court and the balance amount of Rs.2,96,812/- had not been paid. Based upon the said admission, the issue no.3 was also decided in favour of the land-lady.
5. Considering the finding of fact recorded by the JSCC court and there being no material to demonstrate that as to how the said findings are perverse, no interference is called for.
6. The revision lacks merit and is dismissed.
7. Considering the fact that the revisionist is in occupation of the premises since 2005, six months time is granted to the revisionist to vacate the premises up to 31.12.2025 subject to, the revisionist filing an affidavit in the form of undertaking within a period of 15 days from today before the JSCC court to vacate and handover the physical possession of the shops in question to the land-lady and to no one else on or before 31.12.2025 and subject to depositing the decretal amount of rent within a period of six weeks from today. Rent up to 31.12.2025 shall also be deposited within a period of three months from today."
(iii) The judgment(s) dated 07.08.2024 and 08.07.2025, referred above, were assailed by the petitioner/Veena Gupta before the Hon'ble Apex Court by means of Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 21520/2025. This SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 08.09.2025, which reads as under:-
"1. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court; hence, the special leave petition is dismissed.
2. However, we grant liberty to the petitioner to vacate the decretal property by 28th February, 2026, upon filing of the usual undertakings within two weeks. In default, this protection shall stand revoked.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
(iv) After dismissal of aforesaid SLP, the petitioner preferred an Application C-20 dated 23/24.09.2025 before the Executing Court in Execution Case No. 44/2024 (Aruna Singh vs. Veena Gupta).
(v) The Application C-20 was preferred with a prayer to adjust the amount deposited by the petitioner (tenant) with the landlord/Aruna Singh (opposite party) at the time of execution of tenancy agreement. The relevant paragraph of the Application C-20 is extracted hereunder:-
"7. That it is submitted the as per the judgment dated 07/08/2024 the decretal amount is Rs.2,16,000/- and the security amount given at the time execution of tenancy agreement dated 08/12/2005 is Rs.1,45,000/-, thus the same is liable to be adjusted. After adjustment the remaining decretal amount left to be deposited is Rs.71,000/-. The applicant is willing to deposit the remaining decretal amount for which the judgment debtor prepared challan form."
(vi) The aforesaid Application C-20, as stated, was preferred in terms of final judgment dated 07.08.2024, according to which the amount already deposited should be adjusted. The relevant portion of the final judgment dated 07.08.202, referred, in this regard is extracted hereunder:-
"?? ????? ??? ??????????? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ??????, ??? ??? ??, ??????? ??? ???????? ?? ???????"
(vii) To the aforesaid Application C-20, an Objection C-23 was filed and in response to the same the petitioner preferred reply C-27.
(viii) The aforesaid Application C-20 has been rejected by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Lucknow (in short "Executing Court") vide impugned order dated 12.02.2026. The relevant portion of the order dated 12.02.2026 is extracted hereunder:-
"?? ????? ??? ????? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????
???????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????????? ??? ???- 36/2016 ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????????? ????? ???- 21, ???? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?? "?????? ?? ??? ??????????? ?? ??????? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ??????????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???????? ????? ??? K-1, K-2 ? K-3 ?? ?? ????? ?? ???????? ?????, ??????????, ????-???????, ????-???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ??????????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?????? 2,16,000/- ????? ?????? ??? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??????????? ?? ??? ??? 6,000/- ????? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??????????? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??????????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ???????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? 7% (??? ???????) ??????? ?????? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??????????? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ??????, ??? ??? ??, ??????? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????????? ?? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ???"
?????? ???? ???????? ?? ????? ????? ????????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???????? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ????????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?????????? / ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??- " We grant liberty to the petitioner to vacate the decretal property by 28 Feb 2026 upon filling of the usual undertakings within two weeks."
??? ?????????? / ??????? ?? ?? ?????????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ?????? ???????? ?? ?????????? ????? ?????? ???????????? ?? ??? ?????
???????? ?????? ??? ???????????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ????????????? C-20 ?????? ???? ???? ????? ????
????
????????????? C-20 ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? C-23 ????????? ?? ???? ??? ?????????? / ??????? ?? ??????????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ??????????/ ??????? ?? ?? ?? ??????????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ???????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ?????? ?????????? ?? ??? ????
???????? ??????- 26.02.2026 ?? ?????? ???????? ??? ???"
4. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid facts, as pointed out by Sri Ratnesh Chandra, Advocate, who appeared alongwith Sri Abhay Pratap Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner, this Court finds that the instant petition is liable to the dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. It is accordingly dismissed for the reason(s) as indicated hereinbelow:-
(i) The Application C-20 was preferred by the petitioner/tenant for adjustment of the security amount provided to the landlord/opposite party at the time of execution of the amount with an intent to delay the execution proceedings, which should be concluded within a period of six months as per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard.
(ii) The above observation is based on the fact that the amount indicated in the Application C-20 was not deposited in the trial court and according to the judgment of the trial court the amount deposited before the trial court could be adjusted.
5. The amount of cost, as indicated above, would be deposited by the petitioner/tenant with the Executing Court within a period of 15 days from today, failing which the Executing Court shall recover the said cost as per law. The amount of cost shall be provided to the opposite party/Aruna Singh (landlord).
(Saurabh Lavania,J.)
April 2, 2026
Arun/-
