A. S. QURESHI, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Mr. Jayant M. Patel appears and waives service for the opponent. ( 2 ) THIS is a gross case which shows how an unscrupulous landlord can dupe his tenant to part with possession on the pretext that he will repair and renovate the tenanted premises within a specified time and subsequently keep the tenant out indefinitely under one pretext or the other. The petitioner herein is the landlord who obtained possession from the respondent-tenant after obtaining a consent decree in the suit filed by the respondent-tenants whereby the respondent had to hand over vacant possession of the suit shop to the petitioner landlord and pay him a sum of Rs. 20 0 as and by way of the cost for the repairs and renovation to be completed within a period of three months from the date of the tenant handing over possession to the landlord. Accordingly the respondent-tenant handed over vacant possession of the suit shop to the petitioner-landlord on 8-8-1985. He also paid by cheque a sum of Rs. 20 0 on 13-8-1985. After obtaining the possession and the amount the petitioner-landlord did not complete the repairs and renovation within the specified time. Hence the respondent-tenant was compelled to file Regular Civil Suit being No. 178/85 in the Small Causes Court at Rajkot on 21-11-1985 for obtaining injunction restraining the petitioner-landlord from carrying out construction of other shops in the building till he completed the repairs and renovation of the suit shop. ( 3 ) IT is submitted by Mr. Jayant M. Patel the learned counsel for the respondent-tenant that the petitioner-landlord has utilised the money paid by the respondent-tenant for the purpose of repairs and renovation of other shops adjacent to the suit shop and has handed over possession of those shops by obtaining large sums of Paghadi to the new tenants. It is also contended by Mr. Patel that the petitioner- landlord has deliberately failed and neglected to complete the repairs and renovation in the suit shop with a view to harass the respondent and to cause him great financial loss. According to him the respondent has already suffered very heavy financial loss on account of his business having been disrupted. It is also contended by Mr. Patel that the petitioner- landlord has deliberately failed and neglected to complete the repairs and renovation in the suit shop with a view to harass the respondent and to cause him great financial loss. According to him the respondent has already suffered very heavy financial loss on account of his business having been disrupted. He has therefore urged that appropriate directions be given to the petitioner-landlord to complete the repairs and renovation within specified time and hand over possession of the suit premises to the respondent-tenant. ( 4 ) MR. Suresh M. Shah the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that it is not correct that the petitioner has not completed the repairs and renovation work deliberately within time. He urged that on account of financial crisis the work is held up. He has also urged that on account of scarcity of water in Rajkot city the Municipal Corporation does not permit any construction activity. He has also argued that if the petitioner carries on construction work he may be prosecuted by the Municipal Corporation for contravening the rule or order of the Municipal Corporation in this behalf. ( 5 ) BOTH these contentions of Mr. Shah are untenable and must be rejected. There is no question of financial crises as the entire amount of repairs and renovation to the tune of Rs. 20 0 has been recovered by him from the respondent. It is most unfair on the part of the petitioner to utilise the money obtained by him from the tenant under a consent decree and not to utilise that money for the purpose for which he had obtained it. The second contention of Mr. Shah also is equally baseless. It is a mere pretext on the part of the petitioner to say that he could not complete the repairs and renovation of the suit shop because of water scarcity. He has already carried out repairs and renovation of other adjoining shops and give a them on rent to other tenants and not completed the repairs and renovation work in the suit shop. After having received possession of the suit shop on 8-8-1985 and a sum of Rs. 20 0 on 13-8-1985 he could have completed the repairs and renovation work within the stipulated three months time if he wanted to do so. After having received possession of the suit shop on 8-8-1985 and a sum of Rs. 20 0 on 13-8-1985 he could have completed the repairs and renovation work within the stipulated three months time if he wanted to do so. But apparently he did not want to do so and therefore be deliberately did not complete the work as per the consent decree. This clearly shows that he wants to keep the respondent-tenant out as long as possible and cause him as much financial damage as may be possible. This kind of unscrupulous behaviour on the part of the landlord cannot be permitted. ( 6 ) WHEN Mr. Shah found that his petition is untenable and that the petitioners callous and highhanded behaviour has been exposed before the court he raised the pitch of his voice and continued to shout with a view to browbeat the court. When Mr. Shah was firmly told that his tactics of trying to overawe the court will not succeed he flared up and stated that he wanted to withdraw the revision application. This court refused to grant him permission to withdraw the petition. It is not open to any party to withdraw his petition without the permission of the court in the circumstances wherein it would amount to granting liberty to a party to get away with highhandedness Mr. Shah has handed in today in court a note which he calls `purshis whereby he seeks permission to withdraw the revision application. It may be pointed out that it is not the practice in this court to file or accept this kind of notes which are referred to as purshis in the lower court. However in the circumstances of the case and looking to the unscrupulous and callous behaviour of the petitioner this court has not granted the request of Mr. Shah to withdraw the revision application Mr. Shah has relied on the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 read with sec. 141 of the Civil Procedure Code. This contention of Mr. Shah is rejected because Order 23 Rule 1 (1) read with sec. 141 of the Civil Procedure Code does not apply to the Revision Application. Even if it is assumed that it does apply to Revision Application also the withdrawal of a revision application can only be with the permission of the court. This contention of Mr. Shah is rejected because Order 23 Rule 1 (1) read with sec. 141 of the Civil Procedure Code does not apply to the Revision Application. Even if it is assumed that it does apply to Revision Application also the withdrawal of a revision application can only be with the permission of the court. In an appropriate case the court may refuse permission to withdraw. When a court of a competent jurisdiction is moved the proceedings before it cannot be withdrawn without the permission of that court. The court is not totally helpless. It is not under the control of a party which has shown itself to be totally unscrupulous and acting in clear violation of a consent decree. This court considers the present revision application to be a fit case in which permission to withdraw should not be granted and appropriate direction given to the petitioner to do what he is legally bound to do although he has come as a petitioner before this court. ( 7 ) THE revision application is rejected. However the petitioner is directed to complete the repairs and renovation work of the suit shop within a period of four weeks from today. The injunction granted by the trial court and confirmed by the lower appellate court is confirmed whereby the petitioner is restrained from carrying out any construction repairs or renovation to any other part of the building before completing the repairs and renovation work of the suit shop ( 8 ) MR. Patel has made a statement that at the request of the petitioner-landlord the respondent-tenant is willing to make arrangement for supplying water for construction. For the purpose of carrying out the aforesaid direction of this court it is open to the petitioner- landlord to approach the respondent-tenant for supplying the water for the repairs and renovation work in the suit shop. ( 9 ) BEFORE parting with this matter this court considers it necessary to put on record its deep regrets that an advocate of the standing of Mr. Suresh M. Shah should behave in such a disrespectful manner in the court. There was really no need for him to behave in this manner. With a view to maintain cordial relations between the Bench and the Bar this court has always tried to respect the sentiments of the members of the Bar. Suresh M. Shah should behave in such a disrespectful manner in the court. There was really no need for him to behave in this manner. With a view to maintain cordial relations between the Bench and the Bar this court has always tried to respect the sentiments of the members of the Bar. However if an advocate chooses to behave in objectionable manner and show a deliberate disrespect towards the court it must be deplored in the clearest possible terms. Despite what Mr. Suresh M. Shah has said the above order is passed as required in the circumstances of the case without being affected by the behaviour of the learned advocate. ( 10 ) IN the result the petition is rejected. Rule discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. (KMV) petition dismissed. .