ORDER Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - The petitioner tenant is one of those persons who apparently believes in the dictum: never say die. 2. To appreciate the issues in the present petition it would be better not to have the facts in the chronological order but the other way around. 3. When a writ of possession was sought by the landlord under the U.P. Act No. XIIIJ of 1972, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/Prescribed Authority, Allahabad,on 23rd March 1987, the day before yesterday, passed an order to the effect that after the verdict of the Supreme Court the release of the accommodation cannot be put in abeyance. This is the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer which has been impugned in the present petition. 4. On 2nd March 1987 almost 23 days ago a Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition of this petitioner. The special leave petition was against the judgment of this court of 4 November 1986, in an earlier writ petition which had been filed almost four years ago. This was Writ Petn. No. 6731 of 1983 : Badri Prasad v. IInd Addl. District Judge, Allahabad. The decision of the Writ Petition is reported in a journal. The proceedings were initiated by the landlord under S. 21 of the Act, aforesaid in 1979 given a chance, the petitioner would still like to cling to the accommodation. 5. The proceedings initiated under S. 21ft of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 have remained pending before the various authorities for about nine years. The advantage which the petitioner-tenant now desires to take is of the age of the landlord. 6. There are changed circumstances which must be considered by the executing court, the petitioner submits. The needs of the landlord do not subsist, as he is now old, blind and paralysed and not in a condition to work from the shop from which the petitioner is to Ire evicted. The petitioner mentions these pleas in his application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 6 March 1987. moved after the decision of the Supreme Court. This petitioner-tenant, mentions in his application : - "(7) That Sri Jawahar Lal, the opposite party got an attack of paralysis and has lost sight in his both eyes. He is completely bed ridden and cannot move about at all. moved after the decision of the Supreme Court. This petitioner-tenant, mentions in his application : - "(7) That Sri Jawahar Lal, the opposite party got an attack of paralysis and has lost sight in his both eyes. He is completely bed ridden and cannot move about at all. He cannot even sit or stand independently. He is totally incapable of doing or looking after any business at all." 7. The petitioner-tenant draws conclusion from this, and his counsel submits on his behalf that if this be the state of incapacitation of the landlord then he is hardly in a position to utilise the shop himself. Such a plea is being submitted before the High Court after the apex court of the nation has rejected the special leave petition of the tenant. This tenant seems to suggest to this court that landlords drawn into a vortex of litigation and having the good fortune to see success, should never reap the benefits of the decree of the Court of last resort. This court in reference to the context will not let old landlord suffer tenants like the petitioner so that they feel. "very old are we men; Our dreams are tales Told in dim Eden By Eves nightingales." 8. Indeed if changed circumstances ever helped a landlord then they have done so in this case. An old man, blind and with a paralytic attack can hardly take to personal occupation of the premises, the release of which he has sought and successfully, from every conceivable court, but no tenant can take advantage of the tragedies of a landlord after a litigation is terminal and buried. 9. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that these changed circumstances on the health and incapacity of the landlord have given him an occasion to present legal pleas and the order of eviction cannot be executed. The petition has been argued with vehemence notwithstanding that if it were to be entertained then this Court must pretend ignorance of a judgment of this Court delivered on 4 November 1986 and the order of the Supreme Court by which the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 2 March 1987. This Court cannot, and will not, permit this to happen. 10. This Court cannot, and will not, permit this to happen. 10. The Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 2 March 1987 and within four days by 6 March 1987, the petitioner had engineered pleas to thwart the order of the Supreme Court and avoid eviction. 11. It would be advisable if the petitioner would accept the decision of the Supreme Court passed on 2 March 1987, and acquiesce to the position that the proceedings initiated by the landlord seeking release of the premises under S. 21 of the Act, is terminal and thus has become final. The Prescribed Authority will ensure that the writ of possession is put in motion forthwith and vacant possession delivered to the landlord. 12. In case the Prescribed Authority is not aware of this writ petition, and the order passed on it, let a certified copy of this order be sent by the Registrar, High Court, to the Court of the Prescribed Authority, Allahabad in Re; M.P.A. No. 79 of 1983, Jawahar Lal v. Badri Prasad. 13. As the writ of possession has been delayed at the behest of the petitioner even after his Special Leave Petition was dismissed at the Supreme Court, this petition is dismissed with costs. 14. The record of this writ petition shall remain connected with Writ Petn. No. 6731 of 1983, Badri Prasad v. IInd Addl. Dist. Judge, Allahabad, decided on 4 November 1986 ; (reported in 1987 All LJ 366).