ORDER S.D. Agarwal, J. - Before admission, counter and rejoinder affidavit have been filed. 2. I have heard Sri B. N. Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Poonam Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent Ram Charan Bhartiya. 3. The petition is directed against an order dated 19th March, 1987, by which the Prescribed Authority had issued a writ of delivery of possession under section 23 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 4. The property in dispute consists of two rooms, which were in the tenancy of Ram Prasad Gupta, the own brother of the petitioner Ram Sewak Gupta. The landlord filed an application for release under section 21 of the Act against Ram Prasad Gupta. The release application was allowed and, ultimately, the matter came up to this court in Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 15000 of 1984, which was dismissed by Hon. V. K. Khanna. J. and time was granted to Ram Prasad Gupta to vacate the premises up to 31st December, 1985. Ram Prasad Gupta filed a Special Leave Petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This Special Leave petition was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The position, therefore, now is that there is a release order against Ram Prasad Gupta in respect of the two rooms occupied by him as a tenant, which has been released up to the Hon ble Supreme Court. It is also clear that Ram Prasad Gupta has not vacated the property in accordance with the undertaking given to this Court, but has now set up his brother Ram Sewak Gupta to resist the release order. I am also informed that Ram Sewak Gupta has filed a suit for an injunction in the court below for an order restraining the authorities concerned from executing the release order issued against him. The suit, which has been filed, is FJearly an abuse of the process of the Court and the release order cannot be stayed by filing a fresh suit. The main case set up in the suit is that receipts had been issued by Ram Chandra Bhartiya in favour of Ram Sewak Gupta and, as such, unless a release order is passed against Ram Sewak Gupta, the release order cannot be enforced. 5. The main case set up in the suit is that receipts had been issued by Ram Chandra Bhartiya in favour of Ram Sewak Gupta and, as such, unless a release order is passed against Ram Sewak Gupta, the release order cannot be enforced. 5. In the counter-affidavit of Madan Mohan Bhartiya who is the son of Ram Charan Bhartiya, it has been clarified that Ram Sewak Gupta is also a tenant of one room of the accommodation in the same lodge building and, consequently, a receipt has been issued to him. This receipt cannot enure to the benefit in respect of the two rooms, which were in the tenancy of Ram Prasad Gupta. In the circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioner has no case whatsoever. On the other hand, this petition is nothing, but an abuse of the process of the Court and it has only been filed in order to circumvent the undertaking given by Ram Prasad Gupta, the own brother of the petitioner Ram Sewak Gupta. 6. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. I, however, direct the Prescribed Authority to immediately see that the release order in respect of the property in dispute is enforced forthwith and, if necessary, police aid may be afforded to the landlord for the said purpose. A copy of this order may be produced before the Prescribed Authority at the earliest. A copy of this order may also be served on the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur, in order that if the Prescribed Authority so directs, he shall give assistance to the landlord for evicting the person whoever is in occupation of the property, released. Release order confirmed by this court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court should be enforced forthwith. 7. A copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel within three days on payment of usual charges.