JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwal, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is one of those rare cases where the history of the case is relevant which shall show that the proceedings have been taken one after the another with the object of delaying the final orders passed by this Court in a release application moved by the landlord. The multifarious proceeding which have been taken in regard to the litigation in respect of the shop in dispute are nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. 2. The property in dispute is a shop, situate in mohalla Shrirampur, qasba Shahganj, district Jaunpur. An application was filed for release of the shop under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction), Act 1972 (U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the landlord bona fide required the shop in dispute for his own use and occupation. This application was filed in the year 1974 against the then tenant Mathura Prasad, the Predecessor-in. interest of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 6 to 9. This application was initially dismissed by the Prescribed Authority on 28th October, 1977. The landlord thereafter, filed an appeal under section 22 of the Act. The landlord Raja Ram had died during pendecy of the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority and his heirs were brought on the record and are respondent nos. 3 to 5 in the present petition. During the pendency of the appeal, the tenant Mathura Prasad also died. The petitioner and respondent Nos. 6 to 9 are the heirs of Mathura Prasad. 3. This appeal was allowed by the appellate court on 12th November, 1980. A categorical finding was recorded by the appellate court that the need of the landlord was genuine and hard pressed and after comparison of the hardship of the landlord and the tenant, the Court further came to the conclusion that greater hardship will be caused to the landlord in case the release application was not allowed. 4. Against this decision dated 12th November 1980, a writ petition No. 10384 of 1980 was filed in this Court. 4. Against this decision dated 12th November 1980, a writ petition No. 10384 of 1980 was filed in this Court. This petition was filed by Shitla Prasad, Ramai and Virendra Kumar, all sons of Mathura Prasad, Ramai is none else but the petitioner Rama Shankar, as his name is Rama Shankar alias Ramai. This petition was dismissed on 3rd December, 1908, by Hon. Mr. Justice Yashoda Nandan (as he then was) holding that there was no merit in the case and the petitioners were allowed three month's time to vacate the premises in question. 5. It is curious to find that the three months granted by this Court as far back as on 3rd December, 1980, have not yet been over and the landlord is still under pressure of somehow getting possession over the property though five years have elapsed. 6. Against the same order dated 12th November, 1980, another trial was made in this Court by the petitioner Rama Shanker alias Ramai by filing a second writ petition through his alleged guardian maternal uncle Sri Sant Lal. This was writ No. 1389 of 1981. This petition came up for admission before Hon. A.N. Verma, J. The petition was dismissed on 12th April, 1982. While dismissing the petition in limine, Hon. A.N. Verma, J. wrote a detailed order mentioning that against the same order an earlier petition had been dismissed. It was also stated therein that the petitioner cannot be permitted to file another petition against the same order through another alleged guardian, who was the maternal uncle. In the operative portion of the order, Hoc. A.N. Verma, J. as a matter of indulgence, granted three months' further time to the petitioner to vacate the premises. The order was in the following terms :- "In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The petitioner is, however, granted three months' time within which the petitioner is directed to hand over vacant possession to the respondent landlords. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly induct any other person into the accommodation. He will hand over vacant possession peacefully without causing any obstruction to the enforcement of the order within three months". 7. The petitioner is, however, granted three months' time within which the petitioner is directed to hand over vacant possession to the respondent landlords. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly induct any other person into the accommodation. He will hand over vacant possession peacefully without causing any obstruction to the enforcement of the order within three months". 7. After the passing of this order, the petitioner or the alleged guardian, the maternal uncle, did not comply with the order of this Court, but before the expiry of three months, which was the time granted by this Court, the other son of Mathura Prasad, namely, Shitla Prasad, woke up and he filed an application under section 23 of the Act in the execution case arising out of the release application. Objections were filed to the effect that in June, 1982, after the High Court had dismissed the petition on 12th April, 1982, and when the Civil Courts were closed, a compromise had been arrived at between the parties and that in pursuance of the said compromise, Shitla Prasad was to continue to remain in possession as a tenant of the landlord. In effect, the objections were to that effect the a novation of the contract had taken place and now Shitla Prasad alone is the tenant of the entire premises in view of the subsequent compromise arrived at in June, 1982. These objections were considered in detail by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Jaunpur, and by an order dated 17th December, 1983, the objections of Shitla Prasad were rejected. The case set up by Shitla Prasad was found to be absolutely false. 8. After these objections were rejected, thereafter Smt. Shanti Devi, one of the heirs of Mathura Prasad, woke up and filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside the appellate order passed in an appeal under section 22 of the Act by the District Judge. This application was dismissed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Jaunpur, by an order dated 2nd March, 1984, Smt. Shanti Devi now challenged this order dated tad March 1984, by means of a writ petition No. 4805 of 1984 in this Court and an ex-parte stay order was obtained. The stay application in this petition came up for hearing before me on 2nd May, 1984. 9. The stay application in this petition came up for hearing before me on 2nd May, 1984. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I vacated the interim order dated 30th March, 1984. The result was that there was no interim order now in existence in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi staying the execution of the decree for possession passed in the proceeding for release. Against my order dated 2nd May, 1984, Smt. Shanti Devi filed a Special Leave Petition No. 7068 of 1984 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This petition was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and leave was refused. 10. After these entire proceedings were over up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner Rama Shanker alias Ramai, who had already filed two earlier petitions in this Court and had not succeeded, filed a suit No. 62 of 1984 in the Court of the Munsif City, Jaunpur. This time, the petitioner came through another maternal uncle, namely, Chatur Behari. In this suit, an application was also made for grant of an interim injunction during the pendency of the suit. The City Munsif, Jaunpur, by an order dated 4th January, 1985, rejected the injunction application. Against the order dated 4th January, 1985, an appeal was filed. This appeal was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jaunpur, by an order dated 8th January, 1985. The order dated 8th January, 1985, has now been impugned by means of the present petition. 11. This petition came up for hearing before me on 21st August, 1985. On that date, the learned counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that most likely the petitioner had died. I, consequently, granted time to the petitioner to move a substitution application and I fixed 4th September, 1985, for hearing of the petition and for taking steps for substitutions. On 4th September 1985, no substitution application was filed and, as such, the petition was dismissed on that date for non-prosecution. Therefore, an application for substitution was made which came up for orders before me today. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I recalled the order dated 4th September 1985, and with the agreement of the parties, continued the hearing of the petition on merits. Therefore, an application for substitution was made which came up for orders before me today. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I recalled the order dated 4th September 1985, and with the agreement of the parties, continued the hearing of the petition on merits. The name of Rama Shankar, the petitioner, was deleted and, in his place, the names of Shitla Prasad, Virendra Kumar, Smt. Shanti Devi and Smt. Matti Devi were substituted, as prayed for by the applicants. This petition now is being pressed by Shitla Prasad, Virendra Kumar, Smt. Shanti devi and Smt. Matti Devi. This fact is being specifically mentioned for the reason that for all these years, Shitla Prasad, Virendra Kumar and Sint. Shanti Devi have already by various proceedings in Courts somehow objected to the final order and filed objections to the release of the accommodation in favour of the landlord. Smt. Matti Devi is the only person left behind. She is now properly represented by a counsel in this Court and he has also been heard in support of this petition. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the order passed by the court below is manifestly erroenous, as it has been categorically found by the court below that the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner. In view of this finding, the submission of the learned counsel is that an injunction should have been granted by the court below in favour of the erst- while plaintiff Rama Shankar, who is represented by his four heirs, who are the petitioners before this Court now. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent landlord. 14. On a perusal of the entire judgment of the lower appellate court, I find that it is, no doubt, true that certain observations have been made by the lower appellate court in regard to the balance of convenience being in favour of Rama Shankar, but it is a settled principle of law that unless it is held that the plaintiff of a suit has a prima facie case in his favour, the question of grant of an injunction does not arise at all. In the instant case, the lower appellate court, after examining the various proceedings and the evidence on the record, has recorded a categorical finding that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff petitioners entitling them for an injunction. On the face of this finding, the court below could not possibly have granted an injunction. The ultimate order, therefore, passed by the Court below cannot, in any manner, be said to be manifestly erroneous. 15. Evenotherwise, in view of the history of the litigation, which I have already indicated above, it is apparent that the order releasing the shop in favour of the landlord had been made final by this court when a petition directed against the appellate order granting the release application was rejected by this Court. In subsequent proceedings taken by Smt. Shanti Devi, the matter even went up to Hon'ble Supreme Court and there too, the leave was refused by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Rama Shanker was one of the heirs of the erstwhile petitioner Mathura Prasad. The decree against Mathura Prasad and his heirs had become final by the High Court as well as by the Supreme Court. The question, thereforeof there being any prima facie case in favour of the petitioners, therefore, does not arise. In fact, as I have already indicated above, the present suit is nothing else, but an abuse of the process of the Court and, in the circumstances, it cannot possibly be said that either the trial court or the lower appellate court erred in refusing to grant an injunction in favour of the plaintiff petitioner. The order is in accordance with law and no interference at all is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In fact, the authorities concerned should take necessary steps for delivering immediate possession to the landlord of the shop in dispute without any further obstruction and see that the order of this Court, confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is given effect to. 16. With the above observations, the petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 29th January 1985, is hereby vacated. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.