JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - Smt. Raj Kaur is an old and infirm widow of 70 years who resides in an accommodation in Dehradun as a tenant at premises No. 169/257, Old Dalan Wala District Dehradune. He has three sons. They resided with her, but they as same of age and settled themselves and were occupied with their vocations, one went to Madhya Pradesh, the other at Ahmadabad. Gujarat and third at Delhi. This respondent widow is ill with a heart ailment and from time to time she took treatment at the clinic of Oil and Natural Gas Commission at Dehradun and also at the Alt India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi This is not in issue and, in fact, it is the case of the petitioner that she is sick and does not reside in Dehradun. 2. There came a period when she left Dehradun to visit her sons and also to seek further checks on the ailment from which she was suffering and inevitably there was absence from Dehradun. She had looked her house and left to keep her visits with the three sons who had settled at three different places. 3. Upon this, in March 1986 entered on the scene the petitioner. She wrote to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that in the premises where the old widow resides, is a vacancy, that the premises are looked without say cause are not utilised and are without any effects. It was contended in this letter of the petitioner of 21st March, 1986 that the widow has shifted herself out of Dehradun. So accurate was the description on the allegation of the vacancy that at one stage the petitioner also described the accommodation for which she was saying and had an eye on it. She intimated the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that on the floor was rubbish, on which plants and vegetations was sprouting. She did not write once to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer but repeatedly. Her second letter of 23rd April, 1986. On the second occasion she started producing evidence on record upon her allegation that there was indeed no one occupying the premises. 4. On the intimation of the petitioner, an Inspector set out to ascertain vacancy. The Inspector set on record that inspection was being caused after parties had been intimated that there would be inspection. On the second occasion she started producing evidence on record upon her allegation that there was indeed no one occupying the premises. 4. On the intimation of the petitioner, an Inspector set out to ascertain vacancy. The Inspector set on record that inspection was being caused after parties had been intimated that there would be inspection. He further records that upon his asking, he was intimated that the occupant had removed all her effects years ago and left Dehradun and shifted out of the room. He further recorded that upon keeping inside the apartment he found it in a vacant state. He further set on record that according to him the building was old and was amenable to the 'Rent Control Act'. He recommended that the tenament was vacant and liable to be subjected to allotment. There is nothing on record to show that the widow respondent, as tenant, or the landlord had notice of the inspection accused under Rule 8. 5. Upon the Inspector's report it appears 21st April, 1986 had been fixed for consideration on the matter of vacancy and consequential allotment. 6. Earlier the process server set out to affect service of notice for proceedings fixed on 4th April, 1985. Petitioner as a prospective allottee was served through her Counsel. So far as the respondent widow was concerned the process server reported that he was intimated that she had shifted out of Dehradun and thus he pasted notice on the right side of the gate and on the wall. In so far as the owner of the premises was concerned, one Smt. Mangal Devi, the process server records that it was intimated to her that she resides in Delhi. Notice for her also was pasted on the same premises where the respondent widow resided. 7. This, then, is the resume of the proceedings where the petitioner appears and the owner and the widow respondent, as tenant, are not before the Bar of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer was persuaded that the service - was sufficient and this occasioned the order of vacancy and allotment in favour of the petitioner. The allotment order is of 24 May, 1986. 8. Having been armed with the allotment order, the petitioner sought and utilised police aid. Between the petitioner and the police they marched into the premises in question on 11th June, 1986. The allotment order is of 24 May, 1986. 8. Having been armed with the allotment order, the petitioner sought and utilised police aid. Between the petitioner and the police they marched into the premises in question on 11th June, 1986. In so far as the respondent widow was concerned she was not there in any case to offer any resistance. The looks of the premises were broken. Then began the exercise of listing items which were found inside the premises. The items turned out to be more than the emptiness which was described to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to occasion a vacancy and consequential allotment. It was the case of the petitioner that the premises were so vacated without a scrap of item and there was rubbish and garbage on the floor which had occasioned vegetation on it. The premises having been introduced into, witnesses were at stand-by to confirm upon the list of items which would be found left in the premises. The description was unilateral between the petitioner who was walking into the accommodation with the aid of police. The respondent widow was not even aware that her accommodation was being walked into. The items listed even according to the petitioner and the police are 21. The list of items belies the contention of the petitioner that the widow had removed her effects or the tenament was empty. The list of items reads 1. And old plastic tarpaulin length 10 metres X-5 metres. 2. Wooden chair, broken. 3. Used holdall, torn. 4. Basket, broken. 5. Water stand, broken. 6. Meat safe with gauze broken. 7. Umbrella, used. 8. Crockery including three plates two kettlles one steel glass (broken). 9. One tin drum old 2 kg. 10. Plastic box. 11. Pair of weighing scales with steel platters, used. 12. Three old tarpaulins (torn). 13. Wooden Stool, broken. 14. One shall (old). 15. Three glass turabulers. 16. Broken wooden crate containing broken crockery. 17. One wooden table broken. 18. Tin box 4' x 2' containing 2 old mattresses, one quilt with two quilt cover (old) and four bed sheets. 19. Aluminium deep frying pan (karai), cooking pan (deckchi). 20. One Brass plate (thali). 21. One tin box old containing (pieces of cloth and patch work). 9. 16. Broken wooden crate containing broken crockery. 17. One wooden table broken. 18. Tin box 4' x 2' containing 2 old mattresses, one quilt with two quilt cover (old) and four bed sheets. 19. Aluminium deep frying pan (karai), cooking pan (deckchi). 20. One Brass plate (thali). 21. One tin box old containing (pieces of cloth and patch work). 9. It may be mentioned here that all the conceivable items which found itself into the list was described as broken and every such item was given an under valuation of ridiculous proportions. This has not been reproduced in the list as above. Items were given in the custody of a "supurdgar". The looks broken, thus entered the petitioner into the premises to take possession. The police were a party to it. This was on 11th June, 1986. 10. Two days later, that is to say within 48 hours the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was faced with an application seeking review under sub-clause (5) of Section 16 of the Act aforesaid. She arrived in town and instructed her Counsel to intimate the Court that her house was trespassed and broken into when she was out. This application is of 13th June, 1986 and is Annexure 10 to the writ petition. In this application the widow respondent mentions that she was in Delhi for a medical check up and during her absence it appears the petitioner took possession, through police force and undesirable elements, of the accommodation which was in her tenancy. 11. The respondent widow named the person who intimated her that her house has been barged into. She made an allegation of fraud in the manner in which her house was trespassed and broken as a consequence of a declaration of vacancy and allotment on wrong information given. There is one significant aspect in this application of the widow respondent which seeks review. In Para 7 of this application she mentions that the petitioner is her neighbour. This implies that the petitioner was keeping a watchful eye on the movement of respondent widow. It is on record how that on finding the widow respondent out of Dehradun, proceedings to wrest her accommodation were launched. It was intended that the proceedings ought to be ex parte and without notice to the respondent widow. 12. This implies that the petitioner was keeping a watchful eye on the movement of respondent widow. It is on record how that on finding the widow respondent out of Dehradun, proceedings to wrest her accommodation were launched. It was intended that the proceedings ought to be ex parte and without notice to the respondent widow. 12. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer upon this application seeking review by the widow respondent called parties to the Bar. He heard them, took on record the objections against the application and being satisfied that indeed fraud had occasioned the order of vacancy and the consequential order of allotment, set aside the allotment in favour of the petitioner by declaring that the premises were never vacant and directed the petitioner that she deliver possession to the respondent widow. He set on record that indeed the widow was without notice of the proceedings and in effect they were occasioned behind her back and there was no occasion to declare vacancy. The Rent Control and Eviction officer set the blame for these proceedings, at the instance of the petitioner. Upon considering the application for review under Section 16(5), aforesaid, and the objection of the petitioner, a considered finding of material suppression of facts and fraud upon Court was set on record. This order is 6th July, 1986. It is based on the principle that fraud vitiates every proceedings ; such is a principle which is to be found in Section 44 of the Evidence Act, 1872. 13. Having received a decision that the order of vacancy and the consequential order of allotment had been occasioned by fraud and collusion, the petitioner did not bride her peace and pursued the matter in a revision which came to be heard by the Additional District Judge, Dehradun. This was Rent Control Revision No. 927 of 1986, Gurusaran Kaur v. Raj Kaur. The only argument which was highlighted before the District Judge on behalf of the petitioner was and as noticed by the District Judge that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer should not have given a direction to the petitioner to deliver possession of the premises without further proving the matter of vacancy. 14. Learned District Judge has examined the matter and the ground upon which the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has rested the order. 14. Learned District Judge has examined the matter and the ground upon which the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has rested the order. He also examined the records on the basis of which the petitioner gave the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to insist that the accommodation was devoid of any semblance of occupancy. This turned out to be otherwise when the petitioner herself took the police to wrest possession. In her attempt to list the items which may come out of the accommodation they turned out to be more than what she had thought. It is matter on record of the authority below that within 48 hours of the petitioner scuttling the widow out of the accommodation the later arrived on the scene. Learned District Judge declined to interfere and upheld the order of Rent Control and Eviction Officer of 16th July. 1986, by which the order declaring vacancy and the consequential allotment order had been reviewed and the petitioner had been required to deliver possession to the widow, Raj Kaur. 15. Still undaunted the petitioner comes before this Court to seek redress in a jurisdiction which is otherwise much discretionary, and totally conscious of the fact that the record which she will produced before this Court is riddled with findings of fraud and collusion and material suppression of facts; the conduct of the petitioner is unclean. Can she receive discretion from this Court or can this Court by pass the decision of the Full Bench as reported in AIR 1951 Alld. 746, Asiatic Engineering Company v. Achhru Ram and others. The doors of this Court are not open to any citizen to invoke its discretionary power when the conduct of such citizen is responsible. In the present case what the petitioner has, in effect, done is that she has been guilty of house trespass and house breaking. She occasioned the production of material record in such a manner so as to fraudulently lead a vacancy and with further material suppression extract an order of allotment on the information so produced by her. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, cannot aid such a petitioner. 16. The petition, thus, must be dismissed. 17. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Dehradune had rightly held that the vacancy had been occasioned in the premises consequent upon material suppression of facts and fraud at the behest of the petitioner. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, cannot aid such a petitioner. 16. The petition, thus, must be dismissed. 17. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Dehradune had rightly held that the vacancy had been occasioned in the premises consequent upon material suppression of facts and fraud at the behest of the petitioner. The vacancy was rightly recalled, the allotment order justly cancelled and consequently the petitioner directed in the order of 16th July, 1986, to deliver possession to the respondent widow. The learned 1st Additional District Judge, Dehradun, appropriately, upheld the order of Rent Control and Eviction Officer, aforesaid, in revision. 18. The impugned order, suffer from illegality to warrant interference from this Court. On the reasons contained in this judgment, the two order impugned, of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Dehradun, and the 1st Additional District Judge aforesaid, are upheld. 19. The District Magistrate, Dehradun is directed that after having permitted a period of one month from today to lapse, within which the petitioner may extricate herself out of this accommodation, failing which he will take possession of the accommodation and deliver it in a vacant state to the respondent Raj Kaur. 20. For the harassment which has been occasioned and certified by the two Courts below, the petitioner will pay costs of the Respondent No. 3 which will stand at Rs. 1,000. Should the petitioner, desire to deliver vacant and peaceable possession to the Respondent No. 3, without let or hinderance, she is permitted to put her intention on record by an affidavit before this Court within ten days from today. In that event, this Court will reconsider the costs so awarded, subject to what the petitioner may submit. 21. The writ petition is dismissed, with directions on costs as above.