Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1193 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1000042 of 2015 Petitioner :- Prakash Narain Nigam U/A 227 Respondent :- Addl. District Judge Court No.10 Lucknow And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Karan Agrawal,Mukesh Mohan,Somesh Tripathi,Vijay Pal Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. None has appeared for the respondents despite notice through publication also. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18.02.2015 whereby the Rent Appeal No.43 of 2008 filed by the tenants challenging the order dated 06.10.2008 passed by the prescribed authority, was allowed. 4. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner who is the landlord was suffering from arthritis and heart condition and was advised to live on the ground floor and as such, the petitioner moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 before the prescribed authority for release of the premises in occupation of the respondents as tenants. The prescribed authority considering the hardship faced by the petitioner and the old age of the landlord and his wife, proceeded to pass an order in favour of the landlord after considering the defense taken by the respondents. Aggrieved against the said release order dated 06.10.2008, the tenant preferred an appeal being Rent Appeal No.43 of 2008. The appeal was allowed mainly on the ground that the petitioner while filing the release application had not disclosed that there were other tenants in the other accommodation owned by the petitioner. It was also held that on account of the pleadings by the petitioner, the shop could not be identified. 5. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no pleading by the tenant in his written submission to that effect, still, the appellate Court has allowed the appeal. It is also argued that the petitioner had filed affidavits which were clear and explanatory which have been ignored by the appellate Court. 6. Considering the submission as raised and on perusal of the appellate order, the view taken by the appellate authority is wholly unjustified inasmuch as through the affidavits all the facts were duly clarified. It is relevant to hold that the proceedings initiated under Section 21(1)((a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are summary in nature and strict rules of pleading do not apply. The material on record clearly establish the occupation of the tenant over the premises sought to be released. It is also fairly well settled that the appellate Court would not interfere only because another view is possible. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts, the appellate order dated 18.02.2015 cannot be justified and is quashed. Order dated 06.10.2008 passed by the prescribed authority for vacation of premises is affirmed. 8. The execution shall be filed by the petitioner which shall be dealt with in accordance with law. 9. Present petition stands allowed in above terms. Order Date :- 7.1.2025 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench