Shashi Kant Gupta, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the vacancy of the disputed premises under section 16(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) was declared on 3.8.2010 and thereafter the premises was released by order dated 30.8.2010 in favour of the petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said orders, the respondents filed a Revision under section 18 of the Act, which was registered as Rent Revision No. 59 of 2010. No interim order was granted by the Revisional Court in favour of the respondent No. 2.
(2.) IN the meantime, the petitioner filed an execution application under section 16(4) of the Act for evicting the respondent No. 2 before the respondent No. 1. Besides this, the petitioner had also filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment under section 20 of the Act against the respondent No. 2, which was decreed in favour of the petitioner and thereafter the decree was confirmed by the lower Revisional Court by judgment and order dated 20.3.2009. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and order, the respondent No. 2 preferred a Writ Petition No. 35085 of 2009 before this Court and in the said writ petition, the petitioner gave an undertaking that he will not take any steps to evict the respondent No. 2 in pursuant to the decree passed by the Court below in a suit filed by the petitioner for arrears of rent and ejectment. The said writ petition is still pending before this Court. The respondent No. 2 filed his objection against the application filed by the petitioner under section 16(4) of the Act stated that the rent revision filed against the order declaring vacancy and release is pending. It was prayed that since the learned Counsel for the petitioner has given his undertaking in writ petition No. 35085 of 2009 that he will not take any step to evict the respondent No. 2 during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the application filed under section 16(4) of the Act is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Thereupon, the respondent No. 1 stayed the execution proceedings initiated by the petitioner under section 16(4) of the Act mainly on the ground that the undertaking was given by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition No. 35085 of 2009.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the revision under section 18 of the Act has already been dismissed by the Court below and till date no writ petition has been filed by the respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that any undertaking given by the petitioner in the writ petition No. 35085 of 2009 arising out of the decree passed by the Court below in the suit filed by the petitioner for arrears of rent and ejectment cannot in any manner operate as an obstacle to the execution proceedings initiated by the petitioner under section 16(4) of the Act.;