Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17939 Court No. - 6 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1751 of 2025 Petitioner :- Bajrang Prasad Mishra Respondent :- District Judge Unnao And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Gupta,Achyutanand Pathak Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 06.09.2024 passed by Judge Small Causes in SCC Suit No.91 of 2021 as well as the order dated 18.02.2025 passed in revision preferred being Revision No.31 of 2024. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the landlord filed Suit No.91 of 2024 before the Judge Small Causes claiming that the petitioner - tenant was in arrears of rent. It was claimed that the petitioner did not initially pay the rent from March, 2013 up to September, 2015 and thus, the husband of the petitioner had served a notice on 03.03.2016. It was also stated that in response to the legal notice, the petitioner had sought two years' time and on the said assurance, two years' further time was granted. It was stated that the husband of the landlady died on 24.08.2017 and thereafter, neither the rent was paid nor the premises was vacated, as such, a notice was served on 17.12.2020 by the landlady claiming the overdue rent from May, 2017 upto December, 2020 for an amount of Rs.22,500/-. It was claimed that despite service of the legal notice, no amount of rent was paid nor the premises was vacated. The claim of the petitioner was that the husband of the landlady had refused to accept the rent, as such, a miscellaneous case being Miscellaneous Case No.32 of 2016 was instituted and in the said suit, the rent from the period 01.01.2022 up to 30.08.2022 was deposited, as such, the suit was liable to be dismissed. 4. The trial Court as well as the revisional Court did not accept the said contention mainly on the ground that the petitioner continued to deposit the rent in Suit No.32 of 2016 whereas the suit instituted against the petitioner was numbered as Suit No.91 of 2021, thus, the Courts have rightly held that no deposits after the service of notice leading to filing of Suit No.91 of 2021 was deposited, as such, finding that there was a default in payment of the rent, the suit was rightly decreed. The deposit of the amount of the earlier Suit No.32 of 2016 cannot be termed as a valid deposit. In view thereof, no interference is called for in the said orders. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that some reasonable time be granted to vacate the premises. 6. In view thereof, present petition is disposed off permitting the petitioner to continue in the premises for a further period of five months from today subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking within a period of 15 days from today undertaking to vacate the premises on or before 31.08.2025. 7. The decreetal amount shall also be deposited by the petitioner within a period of 15 days from today. 8. In the event of failure to file the undertaking that the petitioner shall vacate and handover the physical possession to the landlord and to no one else and in the failure of depositing the decreetal amount within the time granted, this order shall automatically come to an end and the execution proceedings shall stands revived. 9. Present petition stands disposed off in above terms. Order Date :- 1.4.2025 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench