The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by tenants challenging execution proceedings and has directed the executing court to immediately execute the eviction order, if necessary, with police assistance. The Court observed that the petitioners were in contempt for failing to vacate the premises despite previously being granted time by the Court subject to furnishing an undertaking.
Background of the Case
The proceedings originated from a release application filed by the respondent-landlord, Smt. Vidya Devi, under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, seeking the release of the shop in question. The Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalaun at Orai, allowed the release application on 6 October 2023.
The petitioners, Neeraj Usta and others, challenged this order under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, but the appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge (DAA), Jalaun at Orai, on 11 July 2024.
Subsequently, the petitioners approached the High Court via Writ-A No. 12382 of 2024. On 20 August 2024, the High Court disposed of the petition with the consent of the landlord’s counsel. The Court granted the tenants time until 19 August 2025, to vacate and handover the shop, subject to specific conditions, including filing an undertaking before the court below within three weeks stating that they would not create any third-party interest and would peacefully vacate the premises.
A subsequent writ petition (Writ-A No. 15793 of 2024) filed by other petitioners (Nos. 5 and 6) was also disposed of on 18 October 2024, on similar terms.
Arguments and Proceedings
The matter reached the High Court again when the petitioners challenged the execution proceedings. When the matter was taken up on 1 December 2025, the counsel for the respondent-landlord informed the Court that the petitioners had not furnished the required undertaking before the court below. Conversely, the counsel for the petitioners initially submitted that, according to his information, the undertaking had been given.
However, during the hearing on 17 December 2025, the learned counsel for the petitioners admitted that “no undertaking was furnished before the court below.” He further submitted that contempt proceedings were already pending before the Court.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, presiding over the case, took a serious view of the petitioners’ conduct. The Court noted that the protection granted by the previous writ order dated 20 August 2024, was conditional upon the filing of an undertaking within a stipulated time.
The Court observed:
“This Court finds that the petitioner is in contempt of the orders of the writ Court dated 20.08.2024 as he has not vacated the premises in dispute despite time having been granted by the writ Court only on the condition that he furnishes an undertaking before the court below within three weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of the order rendered in Writ-A No. 12382 of 2024.”
The Court further noted that the petitioners had committed contempt by “not only furnishing the undertaking before the court below but also not vacating the premises by 19.08.2025 as the time was granted to him for vacating the shop in question.”
Decision
The High Court held that the writ petition assailing the execution proceeding was not maintainable and dismissed it.
To ensure compliance with the eviction decrees, the Court issued the following directions to the executing court:
“The executing court is directed to forthwith execute the order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 06.10.2023 as well as in the order dated 11.07.2024 passed in Rent Appeal No. 04 of 2023. It is further provided that the executing court shall direct for providing the necessary police force in getting the shop vacated forthwith.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Neeraj Usta And 6 Others vs. Smt. Vidya Devi
- Case Number: Matters Under Article 227 No. 14978 of 2025
- Judge: Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
- Counsel for Petitioner: Kaushalendra Nath Singh, Sarthack Sinha
- Counsel for Respondent: Dhirendra Srivastava
