RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Agendra Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
(2.) The writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 2.4.2018 as well as 6.4.2018 contained in Annexure nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition, whereby application no. C-24 preferred by the petitioner has been rejected and the recall application no. C- 27 has also been rejected.
(3.) As per the given facts, opposite party no. 2/Siraj Ahmed had filed an application for release under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground of his bonafide need for releasing the shop in dispute situated on the ground floor of House No. 165/23, Aminabad, Lucknow. The said application was allowed vide order dated 24.10.2017. The petitioner had preferred a Rent Appeal No. 6 of 2018 before the District Judge which too was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 19.3.2018. Thereafter the petitioner has preferred Writ Petition No. 8483 (RC) of 2018. This Court while issuing notice in the said writ petition had passed a conditional interim order providing therein that in case the petitioner deposits the rent at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month within a week before the Court below and continues to deposit the same till disposal of the writ petition, he shall not be evicted from the premises in question. It was also provided that in case of default the benefit of interim order shall not be available to the petitioner.;