Allahabad High Court
Yunus Khan vs Colonel A.K. Singh (Arvind Kumar Singh) on 9 March, 2026
Author: Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:47705 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2499 of 2026 Yunus Khan .....Petitioner(s) Versus Colonel A.K. Singh (Arvind Kumar Singh) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dipti Tiwari, Manas Bhargava Counsel for Respondent(s) : Yogendra Kumar Srivastava Court No. - 35 HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Heard Sri Manas Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y K Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent.
Present petition has been filed, seeking to assail an order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judge, Small Cause Court, Shikohabad, Firozabad in SCC Case No.12 of 2017 (Old JSCC No.11/2010) and the subsequent order dated 18.12.2025 passed by the District Judge, Firozabad in SCC Revision No.69 of 2025.
In terms of the order passed in the SCC case, the suit filed by the respondent-landlord for eviction and arrears of rent has been decreed. The revisional Court has dismissed the revision and affirmed the decree of the trial Court.
The argument, which has been made on behalf of the petitioner, is primarily two fold. Firstly, attention has been drawn to the plaint of the suit to point out that though the cause of action is stated to have lastly arisen on 18.2.2010, the suit was filed on 17.2.2010. Secondly, it is submitted that the finding returned by the trial Court with regard to the applicability of U P Act No.13 of 1972 is erroneous for the reason that the burden of proof in this regard has been placed on the defendant-tenant rather than the landlord-plaintiff.
Counsel for the respondent has pointed out from the judgment of the trial Court that the date of presentation of the suit is 8.3.2010 and, therefore, the contention, which is sought to be raised that the suit was instituted prior to the cause of action having arisen, is misplaced.
It is further pointed out that the defendant’s witness, namely, DW-3, in his cross examination, had admitted the fact regarding the building having been constructed more than twenty years ago. Further, the tenant, in his testimony, had admitted that he is a tenant of the shop in question ever since it was constructed, and that his tenancy commenced in the year 2003.
In view of the aforesaid, the trial Court drew an inference that the shop in question had been constructed after 26th April, 1985, and referring to the second proviso to Section 2 (2), it was inferred that the U P Act No.13 of 1972 would not be applicable in the facts of the present case.
Learned counsel has submitted that a perusal of judgment of the trial Court makes it clear that the burden with regard to proving the applicability of U P Act No.13 of 1972 has not been placed on the plaintiff-landlord rather the finding returned in this regard is based on the admission made on behalf of the defendant-tenant.
Upon arriving at a conclusion that the U P Act No.13 of 1972 is not applicable, the landlord-tenant relationship is established, notice sent to the tenant has been duly served and that the tenant was in arrears of rent, the trial Court has decreed the suit.
The revisional Court, after examining the judgment of the trial Court and the material available on record, has affirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the revision.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner, apart from making the aforesaid submissions, 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 respondent submits that he 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 respondent-landlord, on or before 9th November, 2026, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The tenant-petitioner shall file an undertaking before the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judge, Small Cause Court, Shikohabad, Firozabad to the effect that he shall handover peaceful possession of the premises in question, to the respondent-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 18.12.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judge, Small Cause Court, Shikohabad, Firozabad in SCC Case No.12 of 2017 (Old JSCC No.11/2010).
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/-
Â
Â