Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18381 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3380 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shafikurrman Respondent :- Special Judge , P.C. , Act Iv , Lucknow And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Sen,Mohd. Makkee Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 24.07.2023 whereby the order of eviction was passed against the petitioner under the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 as well as the order dated 28.01.2025 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was a tenant and had taken a premises on rent from the father of the landlord. Subsequently, after his death, the son became the landlord to whom the rent was being paid by the petitioner. The landlord moved an application for seeking release of the tenanted premises on the ground that the same was bonafide required for setting up his son. The said application came to be allowed by means of the judgment dated 24.07.2023, against which an appeal was preferred which too has been dismissed. 4. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the requirement as is specified in Section 4 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenant Act, 2021 has not been complied with. He further argues that the dispute with regard to ownership of the property in question is pending before the Waqf Tribunal and thus on both the said grounds, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 5. A perusal of the said two orders reveal that no such ground was agitated before the Prescribed Authority or the Appellate Tribunal, both the authorities have recorded that the rent of the shop in question was Rs.1600/- which was being paid by the petitioner. 6. Considering the definition of landlord as prescribed under section 2(b) of the Act of 2021, it is clear that the landlord in relation to a premises is the person who is entitled to receive any rent of the premises. In the present case, admittedly, the rent was being paid to the landlord. Thus, the relationship of landlord and tenant existed. Even if the title of the landlord is under cloud, the said benefit will not flow in favour of the tenant. 7. Considering the fact that finding of facts have been recorded by both the courts, I do not see any reason to interfere with the said order. 8. The petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 9. The counsel for the petitioner states that he seeks a month's time to vacate the premises. In view of the said statement, it is provided that subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority within a period of fifteen days from today that he will vacate the premises on or before 15.05.2025 and shall handover the vacant and physical possession of the shop in question to the landlord and no one else, the execution against the petitioner shall remain stayed till 15.05.2025. In the event of failure to file such an undertaking, the execution shall take place in accordance with law. Order Date :- 2.4.2025 VNP/- Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench