Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39625 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3854 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shahzeb Khan And Another Respondent :- Addl. District Judge P.C. Act Iv Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendra Singh,Sudhanshu Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- Anurag Srivastava,Kabir Ahmad Khan Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 31.05.2023 passed under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 directing dispossession of the petitioner who is the tenant of the shop in question as well as the order dated 05.05.2025 whereby the appeal preferred was dismissed. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent claiming to be the landlord moved an application seeking release of Shop No.B-7 situate at Meena Complex, Aminabad, Lucknow under the tenancy of the petitioner. The petitioner defended the said application mainly on the ground that the personal need set up by the respondent no.2 was non-existing. It is pleaded that the other co-landlord was not impleaded which is contrary to the rules. The application under Section 21 filed by the respondent came to be allowed by means of the order dated 31.05.2023. The said order was put into execution by the landlord and the petitioner tenant preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, an interim order was passed in favour of the tenant, however, a condition was imposed to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month as rent vide order dated 06.11.2023. The said order came up for challenge in Writ - A No.5487 of 2024 which was decided on 10.01.2025 directing the appellate Court to dispose of the appeal and as an interim measure, it was directed that an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month shall be paid as rent and damages by the petitioner. In terms of the directions given by this Court on 10.01.2025, ultimately, the appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 05.05.2025. The appellate Court considered the arguments of both the parties and recorded that merely because the co-owner has not been impleaded, the same would not be fatal to the application filed by the landlord seeking eviction. The finding with regard to bonafide need of the landlord was also reiterated by the appellate Court. 4. Considering the fact that findings of fact have been recorded and nothing could be demonstrated that merely because of non- impleadment of the co-owner the application would be fatal, no interference is required. 5. Present petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 6. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to vacate the premises to which counsel for the respondent has no objection, if reasonable time is granted. 7. As the petitioner is running the shop since 2001, the petitioner is granted one year time to vacate the shop in question. 8. The petitioner shall file an undertaking before the ADM concerned within a period of three weeks from today undertaking to vacate the shop in question on or before 30.06.2026 and to handover the vacant and physical possession to the respondent herein and to no one else. 9. The petitioner shall also pay the rent of Rs.3,000/- per month during his occupation till 30.06.2026. 10. In the event of failure to file an undertaking and paying the rent, as directed above, the rent control authority shall take immediate steps for execution of the orders passed against the petitioner. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench