Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8866 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1000052 of 2004 Petitioner :- Harish And 7 Ors Respondent :- Thakur Ji Beharji Maharaj Virajman Thakurdwara And 2 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Mathur Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Tripathi,Ashok Tripathi,Shesh Verma Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. I.A. No.3 of 2025 This application has been filed on behalf of one of the petitioners at serial No.1/2 seeking recall of the order dated 07.01.2025, whereby the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. The cause shown is sufficient. The order dated 07.01.2025 is recalled insofar as it relates to the applicant. I.A. Nos.4, 5 and 6 of 2025 The application filed is taken on record. This application has been filed seeking setting aside of the abatement with regard to the death of Sarvarakar of respondent No.1 as well as substitution along with condonation of delay. The cause shown is sufficient. The delay is condoned. The applications are allowed. The abatement is set aside. The petitioner shall carry out the necessary amendment in the memo of the parties during the course of the day. Order on Writ Petition Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on merits. The present writ petition arises out of challenge to the judgement dated 03.01.2002 passed by J.S.C. Court under Section 20 of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972, whereby the suit of the land lord was decreed for ejectment and arrears of rent as well as the revisional order dated 18.03.2004, whereby the revision was dismissed. The fact in brief are that the land lord-respondent filed an application under Section 20 of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 seeking eviction of the petitioner from the premises under his tenancy after serving a notice under Section 106. The said suit was contested by the petitioners and as many as five points of the determination were framed by the J.S.C. Court. The first point of the determination with regard to the applicability of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 was decided holding that on the premises in question U.P. Act 13 of 1972 was applicable. With regard to the second point pertaining to the denial of the title by the petitioner, the same was adjudicated in favour of the land lord holding that the petitioner had denied the title of the land lord, which was an infraction prescribed under Section 20(2)(f) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 and after noticing that the petitioner was in default of payment of rent, the suit was decreed. The claim of the land lord or mesne profit was rejected on the ground that the premises was covered under U.P. Act 13 of 1972. The judgement to that effect was passed by the J.S.C. Court on 03.01.2002. The petitioner aggrieved against the said judgement, preferred a revision under Section 25, which too was dismissed. The revisional court recorded that the findings in respect of the denial of the title by noticing that in the written statement itself, the petitioner had denied the title of the land lord and based upon own submission in the written statement, the revision came to be dismissed concurring with the judgement of the J.S.C. Court. While arguing the present writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the finding with regard to the denial of the title, which is sole ground, is wholly unwarranted. Considering the two findings recorded by both the courts after appreciating the fact and noticing the claim of the petitioner in the written statement, no error much less a substantial error warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. As such, the writ petition is dismissed on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks sometime to vacate the premises, to which learned counsel for the respondent has no objection. In view thereof, the petitioner is granted six months' time to vacate subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking before the J.S.C. Court within a period of one week from today, undertaking to handover the physical and vacant possession of the premises in question to the land lord herein and to no one else on or before 30th June, 2025. In the event of failure to file undertaking as recorded above, the respondent would be at liberty to execute the decree in accordance with law. Order Date :- 11.2.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench