Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:118772 Court No. - 37 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7429 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Omwati Upadhyay And 3 Others Respondent :- Additional District Magistrate And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nitin Kumar Agrawal Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Mr. Nitin Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Dr. Govind Kumar Saxena, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "i. issue necessary direction to set aside the impugned order dated 5.7.2025 passed by the City Magistrate, Aligarh (Annexure No.1 to the petition). ii. issue necessary direction to set aside the impugned order dated 30.6.2025 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (City), Aligarh in Case No.5858 of 2025 (Ashok Kumar and Others vs. Omwati and others) under Section 36 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (Annexure No.1-A to the petition). iii. issue necessary direction to the Rent Tribunal / Additional District Magistrate (City), Aligarh for expedite disposal of the stay application dated 25.3.2025, which is duly registered as Exhibit No.12C-2 filed in Rent Appeal No.25 of 2025 (Omwati Upadhyay and others vs. Ashok Kumar and others)." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that against the order dated 4.3.2025 passed under Section 21 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2021"), petitioners / tenants have filed appeal under Section 35 of the Act of 2021, which has been admitted on 25.3.2025 and notice has been issued to the opposite party. He further submitted that in pursuance of the order impugned in appeal execution proceeding has been initiated and executing Court in Execution Case No.5858 of 2025 has passed the order against the petitioners, as such, interim protection is required in the matter during pendency of the appeal before Additional District Judge Court no.3 / Rent Tribunal. He placed the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1983 AWC 121 (Mool Chand Yadav and Another vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited, Rampur and Others) in order to demonstrate that the interim protection be granted during pendency of appeal / revision if the order under appeal / revision has serious consequences. He placed the averment made in paragraph no.12 of the instant petition regarding the deposit of the entire due rent in order to demonstrate that the petitioner is not defaulter in any manner. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner's appeal is pending before the appellate authority, as such, the petitioner should press his appeal rather petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court. 5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that appeal under Section 35 of the Act of 2021 filed by the petitioner has been admitted and pending before the appellate authority / rent authority. 7. Perusal of the paragraph no.12 of the petition will be also relevant which is as under: "12. That at the time of institution of the present rent appeal before the Rent Tribunal, the petitioners deposit the entire rent. However before filing the appeal the petitioners/ tenants have already deposited the entire due rent by way of chalan dated 10.12.2024. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court copy of the rent deposit slips dated 10.12.2024 and 9.4.2025 are collectively being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.8 to this writ petition." 8. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav (supra) has held that if order under appeal / revision has serious consequences then operation of the impugned order must be suspended during pendency of appeal/ revision. Perusal of paragraph no.3 of the order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mool Chand Yadav (supra) will be relevant which is as under: "We heard Mr. S.N. Kacker, learned Counsel for the appellants, and the respondents appeared by Caveat through Mr. Manoj Swarup, Advocate. We are not inclined to examine any contention on merits at present, but we would like to notice of the emerging situation if the operation of the order under appeal is not suspended during the pendency of the appeal. If the F. A.F.O. is allowed, obviously Mool Chand Yadav would be entitled to continue in possession. Now, if the order is not suspended in order to avoid any action in contempt pending the appeal, Mool Chand would have to vacate the room and handover the possession to the respondents in obedience to the Court's order. We are in full agreement with Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned advocate for respondents, that the Court's order cannot be flouted and even a covert disrespect to Court's order cannot be tolerated. But if orders are challenged and the appeals are pending, one cannot permit a swinging pendulum continuously taking place during the pendency of the appeal, Mr. Manoj Swarup may be wholly right in submitting that there is intentional flouting of the" Court's order. We are not interdicting that finding. But judicial approach requires that during the pendency of the appeal the operation of an order having serious civil consequences must be suspended. More so when appeal is admitted. Previous history of litigation cannot be overlooked. And it is not seriously disputed that the whole of the building, Hari Bhawan, except one room in dispute is in possession of the Corporation. We accordingly suspend the operation of the order dated 6th August 1982 directing the appellants to handover the possession of the room to the respondents till the disposal of the first appeal against that order pending in the High Court of Allahabad. Mr. Manoj Swarup requests that both the earlier and later Appeals should be heard together as early as possible, We order accordingly and request the High Court if it considers proper in its own discretion to hear both the appeals as expeditiously as possible in order to avoid the continuance of the boiling situation. The appeal stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs." 9. Considering the circumstances as well as the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mool Chand Yadav (supra), the interest of justice requires that the order dated 4.3.2025 which is impugned in appeal should not be given effect till the disposal of appeal by appellate authority/ rent tribunal. 10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is finally disposed of directing the rent tribunal / Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Aligarh to decide the Appeal No.25 of 2025 in accordance with law after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. For the period of three months, the effect and operation of the order dated 4.3.2025 passed by Additional District Magistrate (City) / Rent Control Authority, Aligarh in Case No.1683 of 2024 (Ashok Kumar and others vs. Omwati Upadhyay and others) shall remain stayed. 11. The notice has not been issued by this Court to landlord/ respondent before passing of this order, as such, the landlord/ respondent will have opportunity to file recall application against this order if he has any grievance against this order. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Rameez Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad