Allahabad High Court
Prabhu Dayal @ Prabhu Dayal Rajvanshi vs District Judge Sitapur And 3 Others on 19 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48611 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4853 of 2024 Petitioner :- Prabhu Dayal @ Prabhu Dayal Rajvanshi Respondent :- District Judge Sitapur And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Misra,Govind Prasad Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Pradeep Tiwari Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
(Order on I.A. No. 02 of 2025)
1. This application has been filed seeking recall of the order dated 10.07.2025.
2. Cause shown is sufficient.
3. The application is allowed and the order dated 10.07.2025 is recalled.
4. Writ petition is restored to its original file and number.
(Order on Writ Petition)
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties on merits.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 02.09.2023, wherein the premises in question was released in favour of the landlord after considering the bonafide need and the comparative hardships. The said order was challenged in the appeal. The appellate court, re-apprised the evidence as, the prescribed authority had decided the matter ex parte as many as 03 points of determination were framed. While deciding the issue no.1, the same was decided in favour of the landlord, while deciding the issue with regard to the bonafide need, the same was again decided in favour of the landlord, while determining the point no.3, with regard to the service of notice, the appellate court recorded that the notice had been terminated earlier through notice dated 26.08.2015. Even otherwise, the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, stood eclipse when the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was introduced, restricting/circumcising the rights of the landlord with regard to the letting, quantum of rent and the right of eviction, which would be done only in terms of the prescriptions contained in the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
3. Once, the common law governing the relationship of landlord and tenant, i.e. the Transfer of Property Act stood eclipse by the statute in the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the submission that specific notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act had to be served, looses efficacy, no good ground for interference is made out.
4. The petition lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Praveen