Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26771 Court No. - 6 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6310 of 2021 Petitioner :- Abhay Kumar Saxena Respondent :- Vinay Kumar Jain And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Amresh Bahadur Singh,Amresh Bahadur Singh,Piyush Kumar Agarwal Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Piyush Kumar Agarwal, learned Counsel for the intervenor. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 24.10.2013 passed in SCC Suit No.35 of 2008 as well as the order dated 25.01.2021 passed in SCC Revision No.132 of 2013. 3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was the tenant of the premises in question at the monthly rent of Rs.50/- admeasuring area 1500 sq.ft. As no rent was accepted by the landlord, a Suit No.20 of 2004 was instituted by the petitioner under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 whereby, the rent was deposited from 01.04.2000 to 31.12.2009. the suit was filed by the respondent claiming arrears of rent as well as alleging that without prior permission material alterations were made in the tenanted premises. Based upon the pleadings as exchanged in between the parties, the revisional court framed as many as seven points of determination as arisen in between the parties. The revisional court concurred with finding recorded in the SCC Suit in respect of Issue No.1 to 4, which were with regard to the service of notice, the relationship of landlord and tenant and material alterations made in the premises and whether any other person had been inducted as a tenant. The revisional court considered the Issues No.5 and 6 separately and held that there was a default in payment of the rent. The benefit of Section 20(4) was also not found to be admissible, thus, the revision was dismissed. 4. It is also alleged and brought on record that when the revision was admitted, an interim order was passed staying the execution of the SCC decree subject to deposit of Rs.15000/- per month for the tenanted premises. 5. It is argued that no amount has been deposited in pursuance to the said interim order and the petitioner continue to reside in the premises without paying any rent from October, 2016. 6. There is no material on record to demonstrate that the said fact is incorrect or any deposit was made in pursuance to the interim order. This Court had already passed an order for execution of the decree within a period of three months vide order dated 24.04.2025, however, as the matter is listed for final argument, the same is being decided. 7. Considering the rival pleadings and the fact that the findings of fact have been returned by both the courts below, no material could be shown so as to exercise power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, the equitable relief under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be granted to the petitioner as he is occupying the premises without paying any rent w.e.f. October, 2016 onward. 8. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed. 9. The decree shall be executed positively within a period of three months as directed by this Court vide order dated 24.04.2025. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 akverma Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench