HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12082 of 2025 Court No. - 36 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit, filed today, is taken on record. 2. The short controversy engaging attention of this Court is as to whether Act No.13 of 1972 is applicable in the instant case or not. Earlier, petitioner's counsel had sought an adjournment to demonstrate the fact that the shop in question, for the first time, was assessed in the year 1986, and the Act No.13 of 1972 is not applicable. 3. Today, when the case was taken up, learned counsel has tried to demonstrate the fact that the name of late Ganga Prasad, father of the petitioner was recorded in the assessment year of 1986, after the shop was constructed in the year 1985. He has relied upon para 4 of the affidavit filed in support of his contention. He further submits that in the appellate Court judgment, the fact has come that shop no.5 is in dispute while shop no.4 has been released. He has pointed out the discrepancy in the application made by the landlord-respondents, and the order passed by the appellate Court. 4. Sri Anil Kumar Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for landlord- respondents submits that shop in question was let out to one Vibhu Swaroop in the year 1980 and his name is there in the assessment register of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Pilibhit for the assessment year 1980-86. According to him, after the earlier tenant had vacated the premises, the father of the petitioner was inducted in the year 1986 and his name appears in the assessment register of Nagar Palika Parishad, Pilibhit for the assessment year 1986-91. 5. Sri Mehrotra further contends that shop no.4 was let out to the father of the petitioner for the monthly rent of Rs.850/-, plus Rs.150/- as water and Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Lalit Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anil Kumar Mehrotra, Srijan Mehrotra Sunil Rawat .....Petitioner(s) Rajesh Kumar And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) sewer tax. He submits that earlier the issue in regard to the applicability of Act No.13 of 1972 was under consideration before the trial Court, and after the issue having been decided in favour of the landlord, the tenant had filed an appeal, wherein the matter was remitted back to be considered by the trial Court. Post remand, the issue has been decided in favour of the plaintiff- landlord, and the said finding has been confirmed in appeal. 6. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. From perusal of record, it is clear that copy of the assessment register filed by the landlord for assessment year 1980-86 clearly demonstrates in column no.3, address of the shop, while in column no.4, name of the owner of shop has been mentioned and column no.5 demonstrates the name of the tenant- Vibhu Swaroop. 8. Second assessment for the year 1986-91 filed by the landlord demonstrates the shop situated in Mohalla Keshari Singh, whose owner is Rajesh Kumar and name of the father of the petitioner late Ganga Prasad Rawat has been recorded as tenant. The matter has been considered post remand by the trial Court and finding has been recorded on the basis of the assessment register adduced by the landlord as both the tenant and landlord failed to adduce any evidence as to the date of construction of the shop in question and the intimation given by the landlord to the assessing authority. 9. It was on the basis of the assessment register for the year 1980-86 that the trial Court has recorded the finding that the shop in question, for the first time, was assessed in the year 1980, and the Act No.13 of 1972 is applicable. Moreover, the release application has been allowed by the trial Court and the order of release has been confirmed in appeal. 10. The finding of fact has been recorded by the appellate Court which finds no interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 12. However, in the interest of justice, in case the execution proceedings has not been concluded and the order passed by courts below has not been executed, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the shop in dispute for six months subject to following conditions:- A227 No. 12082 of 2025 2 (a) The tenant-petitioner shall file an undertaking before Court below that he shall hand over peaceful possession of the premises in question to the landlord-respondents on or before 30.04.2026; (b) The said undertaking shall be filed before the court below within ten days from today; (c) The tenant-petitioner shall pay entire decretal amount within a period of one month from today; (d) In the undertaking, the tenant-petitioner shall also state that he will not create any interest in favour of the third party in the premises in dispute; (e) It is made clear that in case of default of any of the conditions mentioned herein-above, the protection granted by this Court shall stand vacated automatically. (f) In case the premises is not vacated as per the undertaking given by the tenant-petitioner, he shall also be liable for contempt. October 14, 2025 SK Goswami A227 No. 12082 of 2025 3 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad