Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43476 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2914 of 2023 Petitioner :- Ram Avtar Gupta Respondent :- Special Judge P.C Act Court No.5 Addl. Dist. And Session Judge Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Mishra,Shradha Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Abhinav Bhattacharya,Abhishek Srivastava Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Abhinav Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 21.05.2018 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, whereby the suit filed by the respondent was decreed for eviction as well as the the revisional order dated 25.04.2023, whereby the revision was dismissed. 3. The facts in brief are that the respondent had instituted a suit for rent and ejectment alleging that the rent of the premises was Rs.2,500/- per month plus service tax and a notice was served on 08.06.2009 terminating the tenancy. As the petitioner did not vacate the premises, the suit in question was instituted. In the said suit, a defence was taken that the rent in question was not Rs.2,800/-. In view of the pleadings, as many as seven issues were framed inter se in between the parties. While deciding the issue No.2 with regard to the quantum of rent, findings of fact were recorded after appreciating evidence on record holding that the rent of the premises was more than Rs.2,000/- and thus, the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 were not applicable. Based upon the said and service of notice, the suit in question was decreed. The same was challenged by means of a revision, wherein the said findings of fact were affirmed. Both the courts below appreciated the evidence on record with regard to the quantum of rent including the fact that the rents were paid by the tenant in excess of Rs.2,000/- that amounting Rs.2,800, Rs.2,758/- and Rs.2,500/- and thus, the revision was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the land lady in her examination could not reflect the amount of rent payable and thus, the findings of fact recorded by both the courts are wrong. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, draws my attention to the statement of the tenant, wherein in his cross- examination, he could not indicate as to why the amount of Rs.2,800/- was paid through cheque. 6. Considering the fact that the findings of facts have been recorded after appreciating the evidence, no good grounds for interference are made out. 7. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks some reasonable time to vacate the shop in question. 9. In view of the said statement coupled with the fact that the petitioner is running a commercial establishment, one year's time is granted to vacate the shop in question subject to the petitioner filing an affidavit in the form of undertaking within a period of three weeks from today before the court concerned, undertaking to vacate the shop in question on or before 30th June, 2026 and to hand over the vacant and physical possession of the tenanted premises to the land lady and no one else on or before 30th June, 2026. 10. In case, such an undertaking is not filed, the respondent would be at liberty to execute the decree forthwith. 11. Any rent, dues and outstanding shall also be deposited within a period of one month from today after adjusting the amount already deposited. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench