Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:117927-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19311 of 2025 Petitioner :- Abdul Salam and 3 others Respondent :- State of U.P. and 2 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brajesh Shukla, Krishna Dutt Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Brijesh Kumar Pandey, C.S.C. with Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19335 of 2025 Petitioner :- Appurv Gupta and 2 others Respondent :- State of U.P. and 2 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brajesh Shukla, Krishna Dutt Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Brijesh Kumar Pandey, C.S.C. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Brijesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3. 2. These two petitions have been filed challenging the impugned notices dated 27.05.2025 issued by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Tanda, District Rampur. 3. By the aforesaid notices, the petitioners have been directed to vacate the shops in their possession within a period of 15 days. The notices itself refer to agreements of tenancy in between the petitioners and Nagar Palika Parishad. 4. The case of the petitioners is that merely by issuance of notices, the petitioners cannot be dispossessed from the rented shops and, therefore, the impugned notices are bad in law. 5. Affidavits have been exchanged in the matter and the defence taken in the counter affidavit rests on an agreement of tenancy. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3 submits that one of the stipulations contained in the rent agreement is that in case the first party, i.e. the Nagar Palika Parishad, desires, it shall be open for it to get the property vacated after issuing 15 days' notice and, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the Parishad while issuing the impugned notices. It is also urged that the petitioners have violated the terms of the agreement and not paid rent and, therefore, they are not entitled to remain in possession. 7. In rejoinder, it is stated that no proceedings have been drawn under the statutory provisions, however, the Court finds that paragraph no. 6 of the rejoinder affidavit contains a wrong description of the Act. 8. This Court, while entertaining the writ petition, permitted deletion of petitioner no. 2 from the array of parties for the reasons stated in the order and noting down the contention of the petitioners that they cannot be dispossessed except by following due process of law, granted an interim protection against eviction till the next date of listing. The interim order granted was extended from time to time and is operative. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 admits that till today, except by issuing notices impugned in the writ petitions, no statutory proceedings have been drawn against the petitioners. 10. We find that status of the petitioners as tenants in the shops is an admitted fact. Whether the terms of the agreement have been violated or not is a question of fact which has to be decided in accordance with law in appropriate proceedings, however, in so far as the eviction of tenants whose lease has expired for any reason whatsoever, the provisions of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 would apply. The definition of "unauthorized occupation", as contained in Section 2(g) of the Act, includes a person who was allowed to hold or occupy the premises under a grant or by any other mode of transfer, but permission/ grant has expired. 11. There is no dispute between the parties that the period of tenancy has expired. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the petitioners cannot be dispossessed merely by issuance of notices of the nature, which are impugned in the present writ petitions, however, the respondents may take recourse to the provisions of the Act, 1972 in this regard. 13. The writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed. 14. The impugned notices dated 27.05.2025, issued to the individual petitioners, are hereby quashed. 15. It shall be open for the respondent-Nagar Palika Parishad to institute statutory proceedings against the petitioners and the law shall take its own recourse. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 AKShukla/- (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Saral Srivastava, J) Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad