Allahabad High Court
DR MANOJ AGRAWALversusMADHAVLAL CHATURVEDI AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- Y K SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The petition is dismissed, but the Court grants nine months' time to the petitioner to vacate the premises subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petition under Article 227 challenged an order of the Additional District Judge, Mathura, which had set aside a 2010 order rejecting a landlord's application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Act No.13 of 1972 and allowed a release application. The petitioner, a tenant, contended that the impugned order was based on factual appreciation and did not contain any patent error, illegality or perversity. While the petitioner did not dispute the merits, he sought an alternative relief of nine months' additional time to vacate the premises. The respondent landlords raised no objection to the grant of such time. The High Court dismissed the petition but, by agreement of the parties, granted the nine‑month extension subject to conditions of filing an undertaking, payment of arrears of rent and monthly occupation charges, and warned that any default would vacate the protection.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court should interfere with the Additional District Judge's order under its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to an extension of time to vacate the premises despite the dismissal of the petition.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 — s. 21(1)(a)
Subjects
- Article 227
- supervisory jurisdiction
- tenancy
- eviction
- additional time
- Section 21
- landlord-tenant dispute
- release application
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11848 of 2026
Dr Manoj Agrawal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Madhavlal Chaturvedi And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amit Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashish Bansal, Rama Goel Bansal,
Shalini Goel
Court No. - 35
HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Heard Sri Amit Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Ms Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
Present petition has been filed, seeking to assail the order dated 2.2.2026
passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Mathura in P.A.
Appeal No.10 of 2010 (Madhav Chaturvedi vs. Dr. K K Agarwal
(Deceased) and others), whereby the appeal filed by the respondent-
landlords has been allowed and the order dated 31.3.2010, rejecting the
application filed by the respondents under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U P
Act No.13 of 1972, has been set aside and as a consequence, the release
application has been allowed.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner has not disputed that the order
impugned is based on appreciation of facts and the evidence on record
and does not suffer from any patent error, illegality or perversity
warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the principal relief sought in the petition cannot be granted.
At this stage, counsel for the petitioner, however, seeks alternative relief
by seeking additional time of nine months to vacate the premises in
question.
Counsel appearing for respondent-landlords, on instructions, submits that
she has no objection to additional time being granted to the petitioner for
vacating the premises in question.
A227 No. 11848 of 2026
2
Having regard to the aforesaid facts, and in view of the prayer made on
behalf of the petitioner, while dismissing the petition, this Court grants
nine months' time, as agreed by the counsel for the parties, to the
petitioner to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the premises in
question to the respondent-landlords, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The tenant-petitioner shall file an undertaking before the concerned
Prescribed Authority, stating that he shall hand over peaceful possession
of the premises in question to the respondent-landlords on or before 23th
June, 2027, and shall deposit the entire arrears of rent, as per the terms of
the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, after making adjustment of
the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two weeks from
date.
(ii) The aforesaid undertaking shall be filed within a period of two weeks
from today; and
(iii) The tenant-petitioner would continue to deposit monthly amount of
Rs.3000/-, as agreed by counsel for the parties, towards 'use and
occupation charges' by the 7th day of each succeeding month, starting
from October, 2026, during the extended period of occupation.
It is made clear that in the event of default in compliance with any of the
aforesaid conditions, the protection granted by this Court shall stand
vacated automatically, and it shall be open to the respondent-landlords to
seek enforcement of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority in
accordance with law.
Subject to the above observations, petition stands dismissed.
(Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.)
September 23, 2026
RKK/-
Digitally signed by :-
RAJ KUMAR KANNAUJIA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…