Allahabad High Court
SUDHIR KUMAR TIWARI AND 6 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court set aside the impugned order as the notice was invalid for lacking legal basis.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 16‑04‑2026 that demanded a reply within three days for the cancellation of a lease agreement intended to last for thirty years. They contended that no legal provision permits such a short notice period for terminating a long‑term lease and that the notice was therefore invalid. The respondents were unable to point to any statutory authority authorising a three‑day notice for cancellation of a thirty‑year lease. The Court examined the procedural requirements for notice and held that the impugned order dated 25‑04‑2026, based on the defective notice, was flawed. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the order set aside, with the respondents directed to issue a fresh notice in compliance with law and pass reasoned orders after receiving a reply.
Issues considered
- Whether a notice granting only three days to respond is valid for cancelling a lease agreement of thirty years
- Whether the impugned order based on such notice is legally sustainable
Subjects
- lease agreement
- notice period
- procedural validity
- high court
- writ petition
- cancellation of lease
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17858 of 2026
Sudhir Kumar Tiwari And 6 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, Kripa
Shankar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sant Ram Sharma
Court No. - 4
HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard Shri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1,2 and
3 and Shri Sant Ram Sharma, Advocate along with Shri Sunil
Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
2. It has been contended, inter alia, by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the notice dated 16.04.2026 was issued directing a
reply within three days, seeking the cancellation of a lease
agreement intended to last for 30 years. Learned counsel
submitted that no provision of law validates such a notice where
only three days are granted for response. It is further argued that,
although a reply to the notice was submitted and rejected, the
notice was invalid from the outset; therefore, the impugned order is
flawed and deserves to be set aside.
3. Confronted with the above arguments, learned counsel for
Respondent No. 4 was unable to point to any legal provision
allowing notice to be issued granting only three days to cancel a
lease agreement valid for a period of 30 years.
4. In view of these facts, the petition is allowed on this ground
alone, and the impugned order dated 25.04.2026 is set aside;
however, the concerned respondent is at liberty to issue a fresh
WRIC No. 17858 of 2026
2
notice in accordance with law and to pass appropriate reasoned
and speaking orders after receiving the reply.
May 7, 2026
Nadeem
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Neeraj Tiwari,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
NADEEM AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…