HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6276 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Samir Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned standing counsel for the State- respondents No.1 and 2. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondents No.3 to 6 is dispensed with. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction for the respondent No.2 to decide all pending proceedings in Case No.1163/2024 and Execution Case No.976/2025. A further direction has been sought that the eviction order dated 04.02.2025 is enforced in its entirety. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings under the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (in short, 'the Act of 2021') were initiated which was decided ex- parte by means of the order dated 04.02.2025. The said eviction order was put to execution and the said execution case came to be registered as Execution Case No.976/2025. 5. In the aforesaid backdrop, the private-respondents, who were the tenants, moved an application for recall of the ex-parte order dated 04.02.2025 by making an application for recall on 03.04.2025. 6. It has further been informed by the learned standing counsel that the petitioner has already filed his objections to the said application for recall, a copy of which has been brought on record, however, there is no date Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ratnesh Tripathi, Riya Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Vishwaraj Mehrotra .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) mentioned therein. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this state, submitted that the said application was filed on 19.09.2025. 8. Be that as it may, the fact remains that an application for recall is pending before the respondent No.2 wherein the petitioner himself has already filed his objections and the matter is pending before the respondent No.2. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that neither the learned counsel for the petitioner nor the learned standing counsel would indicate as to what is the next date fixed in the recall application. It is also strange that the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that he had filed his objections to the recall application on 19.09.2025, but he has not indicated nor brought on record any material to indicate that what is the outcome of the said recall application, what are the dates fixed therein and when the matter is fixed. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is unable to examine the matter or to issue any direction except that since the matter is already engaging the attention of the authority concerned. The petition, at this stage, is being disposed of with direction to the respondent No.2 to consider the application for recall as well as the application for execution and primacy will be given to the application for recall and subject to its outcome, the execution proceedings will move on. 11. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law affording appropriate expedition to the aforesaid matter considering the fact that the petitioner is a Senior Citizen and under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 priority is to be accorded to such a class of citizen. 12. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. November 6, 2025 Rakesh/- A227 No. 6276 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench