JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - Within a span of three months, this is the third time the petitioner as a tenant has approached this Court. On 19th February, 1987, when first writ petition was filed, it was considered on merits and dismissed by an order of Hon'ble V.K. Khanna, J. It was, contended in the first petition that certain issues raised and argued on his behalf before the Appellate Court, under Section 22 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 had not been considered and noticed. In reference to this, Hon'ble V.K. Khanna, J. observed in his order that indeed if this was the case then the petitioner ought to have moved an appropriate court with an application accompanied by an affidavit of his counsel to the effect that issues and arguments were raised, but not noticed by the Appellate Court. On the facts and circumstances as on record, the petition was dismissed. 2. It appears that the petitioner's counsel declined to take responsibility of the submissions made at the Bar of this Court, without reference to him, and declined to file an affidavit as was sought by the petitioner. The petitioner then moved this Court again by an application, which was laid before Hon'ble V.K. Khanna, J. and on this application the following order was passed : "In case the counsel for the petitioner admitting before the court below has refused to file affidavit, the court may draw such inference as may be permissible under law from the non filing of the affidavit. However, the application moved by the petitioner shall be disposed off in accordance with law. A certified copy of the order shall be given today. Sd. V.K.K. 25-2-1987" 3. The petitioner attempted to raise issues, before the find Addl. District Judge, Mathura, which had not been argued before the Appellate Court. 4. The IInd Addl. District Judge, in Misc. Case No. 10 of 1987 considered the review application of the petitioner tenant and by a reasoned and detailed order declined to interfere with the judgment passed earlier on 5th February, 1987. 5. This Court, in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not inclined to exercise its discretion to interfere with the order of 6th May, 1987 on the application of the petitioner seeking review of the judgment delivered by IInd Additional District Judge, Mathura, in appeal under U.P. Act XIII of 1972. 5. This Court, in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not inclined to exercise its discretion to interfere with the order of 6th May, 1987 on the application of the petitioner seeking review of the judgment delivered by IInd Additional District Judge, Mathura, in appeal under U.P. Act XIII of 1972. The petition in thus, dismissed.