ORDER M.P. Singh, J. - Two Advocates of this Court have been fighting the legal battle for the authorised possession of premises No. 34. Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad. More than one decade has passed but there is no apparent visibility of any ceasefire. The hostility is apparent even in the Court room. Who are they, Strangers, No. Only colleagues, No. The petitioner is the nephew and the respondent No. 5 is the uncle. 2. The petitioner having lost his claim over the said premises from the High Court on 21-4-1989 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6212 of 1989, decided by Mr. Justice N.N. Mithal, filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. It was dismissed on 10-5-1989. While dismissing it the Supreme Court has permitted the petitioner to continue in possession till 30-5-1990 subject to the condition that he filed an undertaking in that Court to the effect- "(1) that the petitioner will hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondent No. 5 on or before 30-5-1990. (2) That the petitioner will not induct any other person in the suit premises. In case of default the decree shall become executable forthwith." 3. The petitioner did not comply with the direction given by the Supreme Court. Thus he became liable for ejectment forthwith. 4. After losing from the Supreme Court, the petitioner initiated this second inning of the litigation knowing it fully well that he has no legal right to continue in possession any further. There is no doubt that this is a frivolous litigation. The necessary facts are : The eastern portion of premises No. 34, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad was in the tenancy of one Sardar Sampuran Singh. Allotment proceedings were initiated on the ground that he had vacated the premises. On 4-12-1971 it was allotted in favour of one Bimal Kishore Shukla. 5. This order of allotment was challenged by the petitioner by means of a review application on 13-12-1971 before the District Supply Officer. It was dismissed on the same day. He then made a representation to the State Government under S. 7F of the U.P. Act No. 3 of 1947 on 14-12-1971. It was rejected on 10-1-1972. 5. This order of allotment was challenged by the petitioner by means of a review application on 13-12-1971 before the District Supply Officer. It was dismissed on the same day. He then made a representation to the State Government under S. 7F of the U.P. Act No. 3 of 1947 on 14-12-1971. It was rejected on 10-1-1972. The petitioner challenged both the orders dated 13-12-1971 passed by the District Supply Officer and the order dated 10-1-1972 passed by the State Government, by means of Writ Petition No. 354 of 1972. This writ petition was dismissed on 23-5-1974 by Mr. Justice M. N. Shukla, as he then was. A very damaging finding was recorded against the petitioner by him: "In the instant case the allegation of the landlord in his affidavit is that the petitioner has entered into-possession of the accommodation in dispute by breaking open the ocs of Sardar am Singh, which previous tenant, about which incident a report had been lodged with the police. The allagation of the petitioner that he occupied the premises with the permission of the landlord appears to be patently false:" 6. Against the judgment of Mr. Justice M. N. Shukla dated 23-5-1974 the petitioner filed a Special Appeal which was dismissed in limine on 24-7-1974. 7. On 7-11-1974 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared a fresh vacancy. This order was challenged by the petitioner by means of writ petition No. 7028 of 1974. It was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 17-2-1977. 8. In the meantime the respondent No. 5 asserted that he was occupying the premises in question as a tenant with the consent of the landlord from before the commencement of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976 and, not being a person against whom a suit or proceeding for eviction was pending before any Court or authority before the said amendment, was entitled to the benefit of S. 14 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. According to the respondent No. 5, he was.entitled for regularisation under the said provision. The petitioner himself has admitted the possession of the respondent No. 5 from the very beginning but, according to him, the respondent No. 5 has occupied the premises in dispute as the Karta of the Joint Hindu Family. 9. The landlord supported the case of the contesting respondent No. 5. The petitioner himself has admitted the possession of the respondent No. 5 from the very beginning but, according to him, the respondent No. 5 has occupied the premises in dispute as the Karta of the Joint Hindu Family. 9. The landlord supported the case of the contesting respondent No. 5. 10. On the basis of material on record the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an order on 27-10-1978 in favour of Respondent No. 5 holding that- "It is evident that Sri G.D. Vidyarathi has been residing in the house in question with the consent of the landlord since before 5-7-1976. So he is entitled to the allotment of the house in question." A copy of the order dated 27-10-1978 has been filed as Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition. 11. The petitioner has also filed a copy of another order of the same date i.e. 27-10-1978 as Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition, and a copy of the notice issued in From C under R. 14 of the Rules frained under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) as Annexure-3. These are indicative of the fact that a definite order of allotment was passed in favour of the respondent No. 5 on 27-10-1978 but signed on 9-11-1978 and the petitioner was required to hand over vacant possession to the respondent No. 5. 12. Against the first order dated 27-40-1978 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the petitioner pursued two remedies simultaneously. He filed a review petition as well as a revision before the 11 Additional District Judge. The revision was dismissed on 17-4-1980. This order was challenged by the petitioner by means of writ petition No. 7290 of 1980 which has also been dismiss by Mr. Justice N.P. Oza on 19-4-1983. The review remains pending. 13. On 21-7-1983 the respondent No. 5, Shri G. D. Vidyarthi, moved an application under S. 16(4) of the Act before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer with a prayer that he may be put into possession of the building so allotted. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 31-10-1985 allowed the said application. The operative portion of the order is quoted below: "In the light of above, the application dated 21-7-1983 of the allottee Sri G. D. Vidyarathi is allowed. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 31-10-1985 allowed the said application. The operative portion of the order is quoted below: "In the light of above, the application dated 21-7-1983 of the allottee Sri G. D. Vidyarathi is allowed. Let notice be issued in Form C asking the unauthorised occupant to vacate the disputed premises within 15 days." 14. Against this order the petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 14-12-1988. The petitioner challenged this order by means of writ petition No. 6212 of 1989 which has been dismissed by Mr. Justice N. N. Mithal on 21-4-1989. This order was challenged by the petitioner by means of special Leave Petition No. 6817 of 1989 which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 10-8-1989. 15. The Supreme Court has approved the judgment of Mr. Justice N. N. Mithal dated 21-4-1989. Thus the following points stand decided finally; (1) on 27-10-1978 an order of regularisation of the possession was passed in favour of respondent 5. (2) on the same date an order of allotment was also passed under S. 16 of the Act in favour of respondent 5 but this order was signed on 8-11-1978. (3) The petitioner became aware of this order on 2-11-1985. (4) In earlier proceedings, though having knowledge of this order of allotment, it has not been challenged any where. (5) The High Court did not permit the petitioner to raise any objection with regard to the allotment order at that late stage. (6) On the question of pendency of the review petition it was held that in case if the same was allowed, the law will take its own course for deciding that matter. Pendency of the review petition was not given any importance. 16. In the present writ petition the petitioner raised all those points again which stand decided. Twee new orders dated 27-3-1989 and 24-5-1989 have also been challenged which are the only additional points in this case. However, it may be made clear that these two orders are not independent but are consequential orders in the nature of enforcement of allotment order passed in favour of the respondent No. 5. 17. Heard Sri B. B. Paul, learned counsel fair the petitioner and Sri R. N. Bhalla, learned counsel for the respondent. 18. However, it may be made clear that these two orders are not independent but are consequential orders in the nature of enforcement of allotment order passed in favour of the respondent No. 5. 17. Heard Sri B. B. Paul, learned counsel fair the petitioner and Sri R. N. Bhalla, learned counsel for the respondent. 18. The points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are- (i) a direction may be issued to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to dispose of the review petition which is pending since 1985. (ii) order dated 27-10-1978 (Annexure-I to the writ petition) is an order of regularisation under S. 14 and as such it cannot be enforced under R. 14. (iii) There is no allotment order in favour of respondent No. 5 and as such notice in Forms C and D issued are wholly illegal. (iv) the orders of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 27-3-1989 and 24-6-1989 are without jurisdiction. 19. Coming to the first point in may be stated that no review petition lies against the order dated 27-10-1978, which, according to the petitioner, is an order under S. 14 of the A-1. The only provision of review is under S. Ib (S.A.). But since the petitioner himself says the said order is not under S. 16, his review petition is not maintainable. 20. There is another point which prevents this Court from granting any relief to the petitioner on this question. The petitioner had pursued two remedies simultaneously against the said order dated 27-10-1976. One by means of the review petition, and the other by means of filing a revision which was dismissed on 17-4-1980 and finally upheld in writ petition No. 7290 of 1980 decided on 19-4-1923 by Mr. Justice N. D. Ojha. On the principle of finality nothing remains to be decided by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in the review petition. In my, opinion even if the review was maintainable, it has become infructuous and no relief can be granted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The impugned order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has merged into the orders of the higher authorities. The importance of the review petition has been discussed and rejected by Mr. Justice N. N. Mithal. 21. The impugned order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has merged into the orders of the higher authorities. The importance of the review petition has been discussed and rejected by Mr. Justice N. N. Mithal. 21. The second point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 27-10-1978 is an order under S. 14. It cannot be enforced under R. 14. So far legal argument is concerned, there cannot be any dispute. The first order dated 27-10-1978 has been held to be an order under S. 14 even by the High Court in writ petition No. 7290 of 1980 but looking to the facts of the case the argument is misconceived. It is not the first order but a second order dated 27-10-1978, signed on 8-11-1978, which was passed under S. 16, is being enforced under R. 14. This point also has been finally decided by Mr. Justice N. N. Mithal. The question that there was a definite allotment order passed in favour of the respondent No. 5 has received the seal of the Supreme Court even and as such it cannot be re-opened again. 22. Now coming to the third point that the allotment order in favour of the respondent No. 5 is invalid, is again no more open for any discussion because the petitioner had several occasions to challenge the same but at no point of time he did so. By the, principle of estoppel the petitioner is estopped from agitating that point afresh after 11 years. It is only a device to re-open the entire) controversy. 23. It is well settled that the power to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to be exercised merely on the) basis-of technical infirmities or imperfection in the orders passed by the subordinate) authorities. I am entitled to take into; consideration the broad equities of the case. While: exercising this jurisdiction, it is the duty of, his Court to see that no unjust order comes into existence on account of some formal defect in the procedural matters. 24. The only new point raised in the writ petition is that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has no jurisdiction to issue orders dated 27-3-1989 and 24-6-1989. While: exercising this jurisdiction, it is the duty of, his Court to see that no unjust order comes into existence on account of some formal defect in the procedural matters. 24. The only new point raised in the writ petition is that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has no jurisdiction to issue orders dated 27-3-1989 and 24-6-1989. It may be stated that the impugned orders have been passed either in confirmity to the earlier orders of the Courts or in compliance of the order of the Supreme Court. 25. The two new orders dated 27-3-1989 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) and 24-6-1989 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) are as follows : "Order dated 27-3-1989. It is expedient in the interest of justice to issue an order in Form D of R. 14 of the Rules asking unauthorised occupant Sri S. K. Vidyarathi to vacate the disputed premises after 8 days from today and a direction be issued to Sri S. K. Vidyarathi to deliver the vacant possession of this premises G. D. Vidyarathi. Let an order in Form D of R. 14 be 'issued after 8 days from today." "Order dated 24-6-1989 I have carefully perused the affidavit of Sri G. D. Vidyarathi dated 24-6-1989 and the Supreme Court's order dated 10-5-1989 under R. 14D of U.P. (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 be issued in continuation of my order dated 27-3-1989." 26. After reading these two orders, I am satisfied that the order dated 27-3-1989 is nothing but enforcement of the allotment order by issuing form D. The order dated 24-6-1989 is the order in compliance of the order of the Supreme Court. None of these orders suffers from any error apparent on the face of.the record or any other legal infirmity. 27. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the two decisions of this Court reported in 1979 All Rent Cas 378, Ishtiaq Ahmad v. City Magistrate, Meerut and (1979) 5 All LR 449, Mirza Samiullah Baig v. District Magistrate, Lucknow for the proposition that in case if the review petition is pending, then the enforcement order cannot be passed. 28. These authorities are not at all relevant inasmuch as the petitioner himself has stated that the order dated 27-10-1978 is an order of regularisation of occupation under S. 14 and if it is so, then the review petition was not maintainable. 28. These authorities are not at all relevant inasmuch as the petitioner himself has stated that the order dated 27-10-1978 is an order of regularisation of occupation under S. 14 and if it is so, then the review petition was not maintainable. The revise lies only against an order under S. 16. It is under S. 16(5A) of the Act. 29. The counsel for the respondent No. 5 has relied on a decision of this Court reported in 1978 All Rent Cas 416, Vikram Singh v. District Judge, Aligarh,-wherein it has been held- "It has to be found that a review can be granted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer only so long as the order of allotment passed by him has not been confirmed in revision. The consequence of confirmation of the order is that the same would be deemed to have been merged in that of the revisional authority. If the order is merged in that of the higher authority, the lower authority can ha, no jurisdiction or power to recall the order for the review of which an application is filed in Court." 30. In a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in AIR 1948 All 353 , Behari Lal v. M. M. Goverdhan Lal, this Court was called upon to consider the similar question. The Full Bench held that- "The power to entertain the review remains in existence till the appeal from the said decree is not heard and disposed of. The effect of the dismissal of the appeal would be that the original decree would be deemed to be superseded or confirmed. In that view of the matter the Full Bench opined that the review application would then not be maintainable." 31. My views find support from these two authorities that the order sought to be reviewed has merged into the order of the higher authorities. 32. The purpose of filing the present writ petition is apparent. It is only an effort to circumvent the judgment passed by Mr. Justice N. N. Mithal in writ petition No. 6212 of 1989 which has been upheld by the Supreme Court. It is only an attempt, on the part of the petitioner, to continue in possession over the premises from where he has been ordered to be evicted. 33. It is only an effort to circumvent the judgment passed by Mr. Justice N. N. Mithal in writ petition No. 6212 of 1989 which has been upheld by the Supreme Court. It is only an attempt, on the part of the petitioner, to continue in possession over the premises from where he has been ordered to be evicted. 33. Before parting with the case, I must observe that this petition is a glaring instance of the abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioner's only object is to prevent the respondent No. 5 from getting the possession of the premises allotted to him about ten years back. 34. For the reasons given above, I find no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. 35. In compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the possession of the premises must be delivered to respondent No. 5 forthwith.