Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26322 Court No. - 6 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2607 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Garg Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Law Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Priyanka Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 16.12.2023 passed by the Small Causes Court as well as the judgment and order dated 18.09.2024 whereby, the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. 3. The facts in brief are that the opposite party no.3 was the tenant of the shop in question owned by the opposite party no.2. Some time in the year 2012, the opposite party no.3 vacated the shop in question and inducted the petitioner into the shop in question. An SCC Suit was filed alleging that the petitioner is the sub-tenant inducted in the shop by the tenant, which was in violation of Section 20 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 and as such, the eviction decree was sought. The suit in question was decreed and the revision preferred has also been dismissed. 4. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the statement of the opposite party no.2, it is clear that she was aware that the petitioner was in occupation of the shop in question. She also states that in a letter dated 04.07.2017, the husband of the opposite party no.2 had written that the shop in question was let out to the petitioner, however, he was not paying the rent for 54 months, as such, unauthorized occupation has been removed by the police authorities. 5. Be that as it may, in terms of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1974, it is clear that a tenancy can be created only by passing an allotment order under Section 16. No order of creation of tenancy can be passed even with the consent of the landlord. Admittedly, no document on record reveals that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant either through an agreement or otherwise. There is no document on record to demonstrate that the petitioner ever paid the rent to the opposite party no.2 which was accepted by her. 6. In view thereof, the findings of fact recorded by both the courts below with regard to the status of the petitioner does not warrant any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at this stage. The writ petition is dismissed. 7. The Counsel for the petitioner seeks one year time to vacate the premise in question 8. Considering the request of the Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is granted time upto 31.12.2025 to vacate the premise in question subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking in the form of an affidavit that he shall vacate the premise in question on or before 31.12.2025 and hand over the vacant actual and physical possession to the opposite party no.2 and no one else. 9. Any amount of rent payable shall be tendered before the JSC Court within 15 days. In the event of default to file an undertaking or to tender overdue rent, the opposite party no.2 would be entitled to execute the decree by filing an appropriate application which shall be concluded positively within a period of four months from the date of filing of the application. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 akverma Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench