HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12987 of 2026 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Samarth Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sumit Daga, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent. 2. It is contended that a registered rent agreement was executed between the parties on 13.03.2015 for a period of 11 years. The premises in question was let out by the petitioners to the plaintiff-respondent for running a school. The said period of 11 years had come to an end on 12.03.2026. 3. In the meantime, the plaintiff-respondent had instituted a suit for permanent injunction being Original Suit No.142 of 2023 against the defendants-petitioners. In the said suit, an application for grant of temporary injunction was moved which was allowed by the trial Court on 11.02.2025 against which a misc. civil appeal was preferred by the petitioners under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) CPC which was dismissed by the order impugned dated 29.08.2026. 4. Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners submits that the period of 11 years had already come to an end on 12.03.2026, but the appellate Court has not considered the said fact and had dismissed the said misc. civil appeal. 5. Sri Sumit Daga, learned counsel appearing for plaintiff-respondent submits that manager/chairman of the of the plaintiff/school is the wife of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, Samarath Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Sumit Daga Anita Chauhan And Another .....Petitioner(s) Reyash International School .....Respondent(s) petitioner no.2. There is a matrimonial dispute going on between the parties and number of cases have been filed. According to him, the order of injunction may be modified to the order of status quo and the petitioners may be permitted to initiate the suit for eviction against the plaintiff under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021. 6. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. It is an admitted case to both the parties that rent agreement was executed between the parties for a period of 11 years, which came to an end on 12.03.2026. The misc. civil appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC was decided on 29.08.2026. The Court below should have taken into consideration the fact that the rent agreement came to an end between the parties and should have decided the appeal considering the said fact. 8. In view of the said fact, the order dated 29.08.2026 is unsustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the appellate Court to decide the misc. civil appeal filed by the petitioner afresh within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 9. Writ petition stands partly allowed. September 18, 2026 SK Goswami A227 No. 12987 of 2026 2 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad