JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 21.5.1977, and that of the District Judge dated 21 5.1977. This case has a chequered history and is illustrative as to how can a party abuse the process of the court. 2. The dispute in the present case is with respect to house No. D-47/104, Mohalla Ramapura, Varanasi. Admittedly, this house belonged to Kamla Ranjan Roy, respondent No. 3. A portion of this house was allotted to Sri Kishan Lal, who was posted as Munsif at Varanasi. Sri Kishan Lal vacated the house and delivered possession of the same to the Senior Vice President of Rekha Kanya Mahavidyalaya. In August 1968, the respondent No. 3 filed an application for the release of the premises on the ground that as Sri Kishan Lal had vacated the premises, the same may be released in his favour. During the pendency of the aforesaid application, Sri S.N. Pandey, Senior Vice President of Rekha Kanya Mahavidyalaya filed an application for allotment of the premises in favour of the School. The landlord also moved another application for the release of the same on September 8, 1969. On January 16, 1970 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application of the respondent No. 3, for the release, and on the next day, namely, on 17.1.1970 allotted the same to the Rekha Kanya Mahavidyalya. The order of allotment was challenged by the respondent No. 3, in this Court by means of a writ petition. The writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge on 5.12 1971. The learned Single Judge held that the possession of the house had been obtained by the petitioner in calculation with Sri Kishan Lal, the then Munsif surreptitiously. The finding of the learned Single Judge was affirmed in appeal by a Division Bench. 3. Consequent upon the order passed by this Court, the matter went back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. By the time the matter was received by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Act No. 1II of 1947 was repealed and was replaced by U. P. Act No. XII1 of 1972. 3. Consequent upon the order passed by this Court, the matter went back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. By the time the matter was received by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Act No. 1II of 1947 was repealed and was replaced by U. P. Act No. XII1 of 1972. By the order dated 30.3.1973, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer found that in view of the judgment of the High Court mentioned above, the occupation of premises by the petitioner was illegal and unauthorised. In this view of the matter, he held that the premises would be deemed to be vacant. As also observed that in case respondent No. 3 wanted the same to be released in his favour, he should file a normal application for the said purpose. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, appearance was put in on behalf of the respondent No. 3 and an application for release, which had been filed by him under U.P. Act No. III of 1947, was reiterated for the purpose of release under the Present Act. Curiously enough, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application of the respondent No. 3 and again allotted the premises to the petitioner. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal before the District Judge. The appeal was allowed on 4.16.1974, and the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was set aside. The application for allotment made by the petitioner was rejected, and the accommodation in question was released in favour of the respondent No. 3. 5. Against the aforesaid order of the District Judge, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in this Court, which was numbered as Writ Petition No. 6310 of 1974. The writ petition was dismissed on 9.7.1976. On the request made on behalf of the petitioner, two months' time was granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises. 6. The petitioner did not vacate the premises and in order to continue the possession, filed an objection to the application moved by the respondent No. 3 for dispossession before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, challenging the authority of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to hand over the possession to the Respondent No. 3. The application was rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 22 5.1977. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the District Judge. The application was rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 22 5.1977. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the District Judge. The revision was dismissed on 27 5.1977. The present petition was, therefore filed in this Court challenging the aforesaid two orders of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the District Judge. 7. At the threshold I wish to point out that Sri Sidheshwari Prasad, who was the counsel appearing for the petitioner, made a statement before me that as be was unable to contact his clients, he was not in a position to argue the petition, and that he be permitted to withdraw from the case. It is to be noted that this case was listed alongwith the Contempt Case No. 92 of 1977, when some of the parties had appeared before me and were informed that this writ petition would be taken alongwith the contempt case. Sri Sidheshwari Prasad also had notice of hearing this writ petition as well as well as of the contempt case. He, however, chose to make the statement mentioned above. In view of the statement made by him, I reluctantly permit to withdraw from the case. 8. This is the fitest case where this Court should refuse to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is holding the possession of the property since 1968 unauthorisedly and illegally under an illegal order in collusion with the authorities. At the time of disposal of the Writ Petition No. 6310 of 1974, a prayer was made by the petitioner to grant two months' time to vacate the premises. The petitioner did not comply with the undertaking given to this Court and struck to the possession of the property. I am, therefore, not inclined to exercise the discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution even if the orders passed would have been found to be illegal and erroneous. Even on merits, under Sub-Section (3) of Section 18 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had ample jurisdiction and power to take action to dispossess the petitioner for the purposes of carrying out the orders lawfully passed. 9. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. The stay order is vacated. Even on merits, under Sub-Section (3) of Section 18 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had ample jurisdiction and power to take action to dispossess the petitioner for the purposes of carrying out the orders lawfully passed. 9. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. The stay order is vacated. The authorities are directed to get the possession of the premises in dispute delivered to respondent No. 3 forthwith. The respondent No. 3 will be entitled to get costs of this petition from the petitioner, which I assess at Rs. 300/-.