HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW S.C.C. REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 14 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. I.A. No.1 of 2025 This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision. The delay in filing the revision is condoned, as the same has not been opposed by learned counsel for the respondents. The application stands disposed of. Order on Revision The present revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the judgement and order dated 04.08.2025 whereby the SCC suit was decreed in favour of landlord and the damages were assessed to be paid with increase of 6% per annum. The revision has been filed alleging that the revisionist, who is the tenant, was depositing the amount under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The said aspect of the matter was considered by the SCC Court while deciding the issue no. 4 and it was held that after the suit is filed, deposits had been made in the court in which the suit has been filed, the deposit made under Section 30 are not valid for escaping the liability of which reliance was placed upon judgement in the case of Khursheena Begam v ADJ Varanasi, 2004 (1) ARC 269. Even in the present revision nothing could be pointed out, to demonstrate that any deposits were made after the suit was instituted. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rajesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Sanjay Kumar Awasthi Mohd. Rizwan @ Boby .....Revisionist(s) Navrang Singh And Others .....Opposite Party(s) Thus no error can be found from the judgement of SCC Court. At this stage, learned counsel for the revisionist seeks certain time to vacate the premises as the revisionist is poor person and is running a commercial shop. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objections, however he states that the time should be reasonable. Considering the fact that the revisionist is a poor person running a shop since long, the present revision is disposed of granting one years time to the revisionist to vacate the premises subject to filing an undertaking before the SCC Court that he would vacate the premises on or before 30.9.2026. The said undertaking shall be filed within a period of 4 weeks from today. With respect to damages awarded there appears to be no foundation in form of evidence led granting damages with increase of 6% per annum. Thus the order dated 4.8.2025 is set aside to the extent that it grants damages at rate @6% per annum. The revision stands disposed of. In case, the undertaking is not filed within a period of four weeks, the respondents would be entitled to execute the decree forthwith in accordance with law. September 26, 2025 J. K. Dinkar SCCRD No. 14 of 2025 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench