[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Surendra Singh Kushwaha vs Smt Pushpa Devi Jain And 6 Others on 9 March, 2026
Author: Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:47384
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1508 of 2026
Surendra Singh Kushwaha
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Smt Pushpa Devi Jain And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Amish Kumar Srivastava, Jyoti Prakash, Mithilesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Madhav Jain, Shreya Gupta
Court No. - 35
HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Heard Sri Durgesh Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Sri Jyoti Prakash, for the petitioner and Ms Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.
Present petition has been filed, seeking to assail an order dated 27.3.2025 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court/Civil Judge (Senior Division), District Firozabad in SCC Suit No.5 of 2013 and the subsequent order dated 3.1.2026 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (DAA), Court No.8, District Firozabad in SCC Revision No.39 of 2025.
The SCC Suit has been allowed after recording findings that the U P Act No.13 of 1972 is applicable, the landlord-tenant relationship is established, notice sent to the respondents-landlord has been duly served and that the tenant was in arrears of rent.
It is based on the aforesaid findings that the suit has been decreed.
The revisional Court has dismissed the revision and affirmed the order passed by the trial Court after affirming the findings with regard to the tenant being in arrears of rent and the landlord being entitled to a decree for eviction.
The findings returned by trial Court, while decreeing the Suit, are based on appreciation of evidence and consideration of the material available on record.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner, after making submissions to some extent, has not been able to dispute that the orders impugned are based on appreciation of facts and the material available on record and, that there is no patent error or illegality in the orders, which may persuade this Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel, at this stage, has sought an indulgence, praying for an additional time of eight months to vacate the premises in question.
Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that she has no objection to the prayer so made by the petitioner.
Having regard to the aforesaid and in view of the request so made by counsel for the petitioner, while dismissing the petition, this Court grants eight months' time to the petitioner to vacate and handover peaceful possession of the premises in question, to respondents-landlord, on or before 9th November, 2026, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The tenant-petitioner shall file an undertaking before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Firozabad to the effect that he shall handover peaceful possession of the premises in question, to the respondents-landlord on or before 9th November, 2026;
(ii) The said undertaking shall be filed within a period of two weeks from today; and
(iii) The tenant-petitioner shall deposit the entire amount and also the monthly deposits as per the terms of the judgment dated 27.3.2025 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court/Civil Judge (Senior Division), District Firozabad in SCC Suit No.5 of 2013.
It is made clear that in the event of default in compliance of any of the aforesaid conditions, the protection granted by this Court, shall stand vacated automatically and it shall be open to the respondents-landlord to seek execution of the order passed in the SCC Suit in accordance with law.
Subject to the aforesaid directions, the petition stands dismissed.
(Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.)
March 9, 2026
RKK/-
