HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6059 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. Heard Sri Anurag Narain Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 has been accepted by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Sri Vishnu Pratap Singh, learned counsel has put in appearance on caveat on behalf of respondent no. 2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2 indicating that a rent appeal under Section 22 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is engaging the attention of the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Lakhimpur Kheri bearing Rent Appeal No. 8 of 2025. During the pendency, an application for impleadment was moved before the court concerned on behalf of the State seeking their impleadment, a copy of the said application is on record as Annexure No. 5. A preliminary objection has been raised both by the learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Vishnu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 to the effect that it is an application of the State filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. which has been rejected by the court dealing with the Rent Appeal. The petitioner being a tenant does not have a right to assail the said order. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the State that whether the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anurag Narain Srivastava, Chitrangada Narayan, Pawan Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vishnu Pratap Singh Lalit Soni And 4 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Collector / Distt. Magistrate / Distt. Nazool Officer Kheri And Another .....Respondent(s) State wishes to assail the order is a different issue but in case if any observations is made by the Court while dealing with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it may not prejudice the case of the State. Responding to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the property in question was leased out some time in and around 15.05.1918 to the predecessors-in-interest of Nirmala Saxena. The predecessors-in-interest of Nirmala Saxena had leased out the property in question to the petitioners in the year 1960 on a monthly rent of Rent of Rs. 60/- per month which was enhanced and now the petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month as rent. It is further urged that the lease which was granted to the predecessors-in- interest of Nirmala Saxena was for a period of 90 years which has not been renewed since 1978 but even otherwise the term of the lease has come to an end in the year 2007. It is urged that Nirmala Saxena has sold out the property contrary to the terms of the lease to the private respondent no. 2 who initiated proceedings under Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 wherein the petitioner had raised an objection that the respondent no. 2 was not the owner nor the landlord and therefore the relationship of landlord and tenant did not subsist. Though, this did not find favour with the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner being aggrieved had preferred an appeal which is engaging the attention of the Appellate Court. It is urged that in the aforesaid backdrop where the lease was under the Government's Grant Act and the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act did not apply, in such circumstances where there was no relationship of landlord and tenant rather the property vested with the State, accordingly, the State was both a necessary and a proper party. Having considered the aforesaid submissions, a specific query was put to Sri Anurag Narain, learned counsel for the petitioners as to under what circumstances does he have the right to assail an order which was actually passed on an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. moved by the State. A227 No. 6059 of 2025 2 An attempt was made by Sri Anurag Narain, learned counsel for the petitioners to make lengthy submissions on the issue of landlord and tenant as well as the lease, however, he could not dispute the fact that in so far as the impugned order is concerned, at best, the person aggrieved would have been the State who had moved the application as it did not impact the petitioners, who are mere tenants. It also could not be disputed that the issue which is being raised by the tenant is already seized with the Appellate Court under Section 22 of the UP Act 13 of 1972 and apparently the State whose application has been rejected is not before the court assailing the said order. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find that there is any merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner in so far as the maintainability is concerned and the petitioner also does not have the locus to assail the said order dated 21.08.2025. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition at the behest of the present petitioners, consequently, it is dismissed, however, it is observed that in case if the State wishes to challenge the order, the same shall be considered on its own merits. Needless to say, if the petitioner has raised the issue of landlord and tenant before the Appellate Court then it will be decided in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petition shall stand dismissed. October 14, 2025 Asheesh A227 No. 6059 of 2025 3 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench