- (1.) Sri P.K. Jain, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Komal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No.2.
(2.) Petitioner is the landlady of the disputed premises. Her application for release under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been allowed by the prescribed authority and the order has been affirmed by the appellate court as well as by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 10.07.08 passed in Writ Petition No.28538 of 2008 wherein the tenant Lal Chandra, the father of respondent No.2 was allowed a years' time to vacate the premises in dispute provided he furnishes an undertaking on affidavit in the court below. The order of the High Court was allowed to attend finality as it was not challenged any further. An undertaking was furnished but even then the premises in dispute was not vacated.
(3.) Petitioner moved application under Section 23 of the Act for seeking possession of the premises in dispute pursuant to the order of release passed under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. It has been registered as Execution Case No. 2 of 2008.;