Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24581 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1000183 of 2005 Petitioner :- Waqf Khan Bahadur Mohammad Umar Faizabad Thru Secy. Respondent :- Brij Mohan Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Pandey,Rakesh Kumar Srivastava,Ram Chandra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Prashant Kumar Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 03.02.2001 whereby the JSCC suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed, the order dated 18.02.2003 whereby the SCC Revision was also dismissed as well as the order dated 07.11.2005 whereby the review filed seeking a review of the dated 18.02.2003 was also dismissed. 3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner filed a suit after serving a notice under Section 106 read with Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act determining the tenancy of the respondent and thereafter preferred a suit. The said suit was dismissed by means of the judgment dated 03.02.2001 holding that the notice could not have been served by the Secretary of the Waqf. Aggrieved against the said order, a revision was preferred, the revisional court framed almost five points of determination. The issue no. 4 & 5 with regard to right of the Secretary to serve a notice was decided in favour of the petitioner, however, the issue no. 2 & 3, which were framed with regard to the alleged default committed by the tenant and material alteration made in the premises, the same were decided against the petitioner and consequently the suit was dismissed. The petitioner preferred a review, which too was dismissed. 4. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that admittedly, the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was not applicable to the premises in question and a notice was duly served. 5. Irrespective of whether the default was committed or not, on the determination of tenancy, the consequences of eviction have to follow. The order in review records that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act did not determine the tenancy, however, notices are on record as Annexure Nos. 4 & 5 clearly determined the tenancy after giving 30 days period, which are in compliance of the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Finding the notice to be on record and the finding the revisional order as well as the review order, contrary to the notices on record. Both the orders cannot be sustained. The decree of eviction is passed against the respondent and in favour of the petitioner. The respondents are directed to hand over the vacant and physical possession of the premises in question to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. 6. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above. 7. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Court below forthwith. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Arun Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench