HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 98 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit, filed by learned counsel for the review- applicant, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the review-applicant. 3. The present review application has been filed seeking review of the judgment and order passed by this Court on 11.08.2025, whereby, the petition was dismissed on account of non-presence of the counsel for the petitioner. Although, a review has been filed, however, taking into account the hardship of the counsel prayed, the order dated 11.08.2025 is recalled. 4. Review application is disposed off. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on merits on main petition. 6. The petition in question was filed challenging the order dated 31.10.2019 passed at the instance of the landlord, whereby a decree of ejectment and arrears of rent was passed in favour of the landlord, as well as the order dated 19.04.2022, whereby, the revision in question was dismissed. 7. The facts in question are that, the respondent-landlord, filed a suit alleging that there was a default committed by the tenant in payment of rent and despite service of notice, no amounts were paid, as such, the suit Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shailesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rakesh Kumar Jaiswal .....Applicant(s) Addl. District And Session Judge Court No. 9 Raebareli And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) in question was filed seeking a decree of arrears of rent and ejectment, the said suit was registered as Suit No. 02 of 2005, which is contained in Annexure No.5 to the writ petition. The respondent, put in appearance and denied the allegations levelled. The said written statement was filed on 19.07.2006 and is taken on record as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition. An affidavit has been filed today indicating that an application was moved on 28.03.2007, seeking permission of the Court, to deposit the arrears of rent along with interest, court fees, etc., as prescribed under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. So as to avail the benefit, on the said application, an order came to be passed on 19.03.2007, wherein, it was recorded that the tenant, the petitioner herein, had moved an application seeking permission to deposit the arrears of rent along with cost fees, etc., which was opposed by the counsel for landlord on the ground that the same has been filed beyond the prescribed period only to claim the benefit of deposit. The Court proceeded to allow the said application at the cost and risk of the tenant who had moved the application. Subsequently, the suit in question came to be decided by the J.S.C.Court vide judgment dated 31.10.2019. In the said suit, after exchange of pleadings, as many as 10 issues were framed. The court had framed issue no.4 with regard to the quantum of rent, which was payable by the tenant. The Court after hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence held that the claim of Rs. 45,400/- was justified on the basis of agreement in between the parties. The Court also recorded that material alterations were done. Ultimately, the Court finding the notice was properly served and there being default of rent, proceeded to decree on 31.10.2019, the petitioner herein preferred a revision under Section 25 of the Small Causes Court Act, which came to be dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 19.04.2022. 8. Considering the findings recorded in the orders that the shop in question was constructed sometimes in the year 1992-1993, and there being no material to the contrary, merely, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable. The revisional court reiterated the findings recorded by the trial court, also dealt with the arguments of the petitioner that the agreement in question was not a registered agreement CMRA No. 98 of 2025 2 and, thereafter, proceeded to dismiss the revision. 9. Challenging the said orders, counsel for the petitioner argues that, all the deposits were made before the first date of hearing and, thus, the provisions of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 ought to have been given to the petitioner. The said argument merits rejection for the sole reason that provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not even applicable. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant gives up his argument and states that he is confining his argument to grant of time to vacate the premises. 11. Considering the said submission, the applicant is granted three months' time to vacate the premises subject to the applicant filing an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Court concerned within one week from today to vacate the premises in question on or before 30.11.2025 and to deposit the entire outstanding amount, if any. 12. In the event of the undertaking being filed, as directed above, the eviction of the petitioner shall not take place till 30.11.2025. 13. Present petition under Article 227 is disposed of in above terms. August 25, 2025 Praveen CMRA No. 98 of 2025 3 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench