Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42487 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7808 of 2025 Petitioner :- Lalloo @ Lallu Patel Respondent :- Appellate Authority/Addl. District And Session Judge/Spl. Judge P.C. Act Court No 7 And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhupendra Nath Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Jitendra Kumar,Ram Raj Ojha Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ram Raj Ojha, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the prescribed authority under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 on 11.11.2016 as well as the judgement dated 29.04.2025, whereby the appeal was dismissed. 3. The facts, in brief, are that respondent No.3 had instituted a suit before the prescribed authority in the year 2011 seeking eviction of the petitioner from the property in question on the ground of bona fide need. In the said suit, the petitioner had taken a defence that the father of respondent No.3 was not the land lord of the premises in question and the land belonged to the railways. The said contention was considered by both the authorities and was rejected on the ground that no documents could be produced to substantiate the said contention of the petitioner. The affidavit of the petitioner filed before the prescribed is also on record, wherein he has claimed that he is the owner of the property since time immemorial. Even before this Court, no document has been annexed to demonstrate the title over the property in question. It was a clear case of denial on title of the land lord. Both the courts have recorded findings of fact with regard to prima facie case and the comparative hardships inter se in between the parties. 4. In the absence of any evidence filed by the petitioner before the trial court, the appellate court and even before this Court to substantiate his contention that he was the owner, no ground for interference is made out. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that some reasonable time may be granted to vacate the premises in question, to which, the respondent has no objection. 6. In view thereof, the petition is dismissed with observations that in case, the petitioner executes an undertaking in the form of an affidavit within a period of three weeks from today before the prescribed authorlity, undertaking to vacate the premises in question on or before 31st December, 2025 and to hand over the vacant and physical possession of the premises in question to respondent No.3 only, the execution shall not take place. 7. In case, such an affidavit as directed above is not filed within the time granted, the prescribed authority is directed to execute the decree forth with. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench