HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 33312 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Considering the orders to be passed in the present petition, this Court does not propose to invite counter affidavit. 3. The petitioners by means of the present writ petition have assailed the notice/order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the respondent no.3 by which he has increased the rent of the shop in question. 4. There are ten petitioners in the present petition. However, petitioners have enclosed the impugned order only in respect to petitioner no.5. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petition may be entertained only in respect to petitioner no.5, and so far as the other petitioners are concerned, the writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed with liberty to other petitioners to file a fresh writ petition. 5. In view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed against all the petitioners except petitioner no.5 with liberty to file a fresh writ petition. 6. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that rent of the shop has been enhanced exorbitantly. It is submitted that reply to the notice has been given by the petitioner no.5, but the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Ballia while passing the impugned order did not consider the reply of the petitioner no.5. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohd. Sonu, Ravindra Kumar Srivastava, Vikas Mani Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Uma Shankar And 9 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) 7. Learned Standing Counsel would contend that since the petitioner no.5 has violated the terms and conditions of the lease deed, therefore, impugned order has been rightly passed. 8. Be that as it may, perusal of impugned order reveals that no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner no.5 before passing the impugned order for evicting the shop in question. 9. Learned Standing Counsel could not demonstrate from the impugned order that any notice or opportunity of hearing in respect to eviction of shop in question has been given to the petitioner no.5. Even otherwise, the law is settled that a person who was in lawful possession over a property, though his possession may after termination of lease become unauthorised, he cannot be evicted except in accordance with law. 10. Considering the aforesaid fact, we dispose off the writ petition permitting the petitioner no.5 to file a detailed representation against the order dated 07.08.2025 before the respondent no.3-Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, District Ballia within a period of one month from today. On submitting such representation, the respondent no.3 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date he receives the representation of the petitioner no.5 after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to him, and after supplying all the necessary materials to the petitioner no.5 which respondent no.3 wants to rely upon against him. 11. For a period of four months or till the decision on the representation of the petitioner no.5 by the respondent no.3, whichever is earlier, the petitioner no.5 shall not be evicted from the shop in question. 12. It is made clear that if there is any concealment of fact by the petitioner no.5 in obtaining the present order, the respondents shall have the liberty to file recall application to recall the said order. September 22, 2025 Sattyarth WRIC No. 33312 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATTYARTH ANAND High Court of Judicature at Allahabad