Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42110 Court No. - 7 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 112 of 2025 Applicant :- Raj Kamal Rastogi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- Court Of Addl. Dist. Judge (P.C. Act) Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pritish Kumar,Amal Rastogi,Dhruv Mathur,Km. Vasundhara Mathur Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. Order on I.A. No.1 of 2025 1. The present application seeks condonation of delay in filing review application. 2. The cause shown is sufficient. The application is allowed. 3. The delay in filing the review application is condoned. Order on Review Application 4. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants. 5. The review application has been filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 28.04.2025. 6. Against the order sought to be reviewed, the applicants had preferred an SLP (C) No.14201 of 2025 Raj Kamal Rastogi and others vs Ajay Khanna and others) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein permission was granted to seek review of the impugned order before the High Court. In pursuance to the said liberty, the present review has been filed by the applicants. 7. Sri Dhruv Mathur, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the review applicants argues that in between the landlord and the tenant, an SCC suit was filed, which was rejected. He draws my attention to the Issue No.2 framed by the JSC Court in SCC Suit No.219 of 1997 which was to the effect as to whether, the tenants, who are the review applicants herein, have given the property on sub-tenancy. He then draws my attention to the finding recorded on the Issue No.2 to argues that it was specifically held that the landlord could not establish that the property was given under sub-tenancy. The said argument according to the Counsel for the applicants was not considered while delivering the judgment which is sought to be reviewed. 8. The said contention, merits rejection for two reasons; firstly that in terms of the mandate of Section 20(2)(e) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 for seeking eviction, the landlord has to establish that the tenant has sub-let the premises in contravention of the provisions of Section 25 whereas for declaration of vacancy under Section 12 (1), the landlord has to establish that he has allowed it to be occupied by any person who is not a member of this family, the two are absolutely different provisions. The findings with regard to the creation of sub-tenancy cannot be imported for testing whether the vacancy was rightly determined under Section 12 or not. Furthermore before the revisional court where the vacancy order was challenged, there was no specific pleadings or argument to the effect that the finding recorded by the JSC Court would have any effect while determining the vacancy as prescribed under Section 12 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. 9. The Counsel for the applicants further argued that the revisional court, while considering the revision arising out of an order of release, could not have gone beyond correcting the errors and could not have recorded a fresh finding on the basis of the material which was not available before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. 10. The said point, I am afraid, cannot be considered in review as neither the same was argued when the judgment and order was passed by this Court nor was it pressed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP. 11. As this Court had granted time for six months to vacate the property in question which was subject to filing an undertaking within three weeks and in case, the undertaking has not been filed, the JSC Court shall comply the order dated 28.04.2025 and compliance report be sent before this Court within 15 days from today. 12. The Senior Registrar of this Court shall communicate the order to the court concerned forthwith. 13. The review application lacks merit and is dismissed. Order Date :- 23.7.2025 akverma Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench