M. KATJU, J. Heard Sri R. N. Bhalla for the petitioner and Sri Kushal Kant for the respondents. 2. This writ petition reveals a shocking state of affairs. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is the land lady of a portion of premises No. 86/104, Raipurwa, Kanpur. She filed an eviction petition under Section 21 (l) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings Act against the tenant Sarju Prasad which was decreed. Sarju Prasad filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act which was rejected, and thereafter he filed a writ petition being writ petition No. 2354 of 1987 which was also dismissed by this Court on 16. 1. 87. True copy of the judgment of this Court in an-nexure-1 to the writ petition. When the writ petition was being dismissed, the petitioner in that petition, Sarju Prasad (who is respondent No. 1 in the present petition) gave an undertaking that he will vacate the premises in three months time. Hence, he should have vacated the said premises on or before 16. 4. 87. 3. However, instead of vacating the said premises it appears that Sarju Prasad instigated his brother Radhey Lal to file an injunction suit being Suit No. 720 of 1987 Radhey Lal v. Kanti Devi. True copy of the plaint in the said suit is annexure-2 to the writ petition. In reply to the allegation in the plaint, the land lady (the petitioner in the present writ petition) filed her written statement, true copy of which is annexure-3 to the writ petition. In this written statement it was specifically pleaded that the suit is not maintainable and is an abuse of the process of the Court, since in respect of the same premises the High Court had upheld the eviction order under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings Act. 4. It appears that instead of handing over possession of the said premises, which consists of only one room and common amenities in the ground floor of premises No. 86/104 Raipurwa, Kanpur, Sarju Prasad fraudulently handed over possession of the same to his real brother Radhey Lal, who is respondent No. 2 in this writ petition. The learned Munsif Magistrate before whom the aforesaid suit No. 720 of 1987 was filed rejected the temporary injunction application of Radhey Lal by order dated 24. 11. 88 vide annexure-5 to the writ petition. The learned Munsif Magistrate before whom the aforesaid suit No. 720 of 1987 was filed rejected the temporary injunction application of Radhey Lal by order dated 24. 11. 88 vide annexure-5 to the writ petition. A perusal of this order shows that a finding of fact has been recorded in the said order that Radhey Lal lived in a different portion of premises No. 86/104 and has nothing to do with the disputed portion, whose tenant was Sarju Prasad. Thus, in fact there were two tenancies in premises No. 86/104, one of Jagannath (father of Radhey Lal and Sarju Prasad) on whose death it was inherited by Sarju Prasad, and the other of Radhey Lal. Hence, Radhey Lal had nothing to do with the tenancy of Sarju Prasad, and yet he fraudulently filed the suit No. 720 of 1987 only to frustrate the judgment of this court in writ petition No. 2354 of 1987. 5. Against the order of the learned Munsif Magistrate rejecting the temporary injunction application Radhey Lal filed an appeal being appeal No. 308 of 1988 which was allowed by Sri T. N. Misra, the then IInd Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar, by his judgment dated 17. 10. 90 vide annexure-6 to the writ petition. It is this judgment which is assailed in the present writ petition. 6. In my opinion, there could not be any manner of doubt that Suit No. 720 of 1987 was a fraudulent and mala fide suit whose whole purpose was to frustrate the eviction decree against Sarju Prasad which had been upheld by this Court. Sri T. N. Misra, the then Hnd Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar, on a specious and false reasoning has held that Radhey Lal was a co-tenant, and since no decree had been passed against him he could not be evicted from the premises in dispute. 7. In my opinion, the judgment of the II Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar, is not only erroneous in law but it prima facie seems to be case of collusion between Sri T. N. Misra, the then II Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar, on the one hand and Sarju Prasad and Radhey Lal on the other hand. The result of the impugned order is that despite the undertaking of Sarju Prasad given on 16. 1. The result of the impugned order is that despite the undertaking of Sarju Prasad given on 16. 1. 87 in writ petition No. 2354 of 1987 to hand over possession within three months, possession has not yet been given to the Land Lady although ten years have expired since the date of the undertaking. 8. When a clear finding had been recorded by the learned Munsif Magistrate that Radhey Lal had nothing to do with the disputed portion of premises No. 86/104. 1 fail to understand how Sri T. N. Misra could have recorded the finding that the Radhey Lal was co-tenant of the premises in dispute. 9. Sri T. N. Misras reasoning in the impugned judgment is that since the initial tenant was Jagannath hence on his demise both his sons become co-tenants, and since in the earlier petition under Section 21 of the Act the decree was only against Sarju Prasad it was not a decree against Radhey Lal. 10. In my opinion, this is a totally specious and untenable reasoning. When a clear finding of fact had been recorded by learned Munsif that Sarju Prasad and Radhey Lal were tenants of different portions of premises No. 86/104 on the basis of evidence on record, and that finding of fact had not been disturbed by Sri TN. Misra, I fail to understand how he could have held that Radhey Lal was a co-tenant of the premises in dispute. Moreover, the definition of tenant in Section 3 (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings Act states: " (a) tenant, in relation to a building, means a person by whom its rent is payable, and on the tenants death- (1) in the case of a residential building, such only of his heirs as normally resided with him in the building at the time of his death; (2) in the case of a non-residential building, his heirs;" 11. A perusal of the above definition shows that when a tenant dies then only in such an heir who normally resides in the building with him at the time of his death becomes a tenant. In the disputed portion the tenant was initially Jagannath, and Jagannath, his wife and Sarju Prasad were living there, while Radhey Lal was living in an independent portion having a separate tenancy, as observed by the learned Munsif in his order dated 24. 11. 88. In the disputed portion the tenant was initially Jagannath, and Jagannath, his wife and Sarju Prasad were living there, while Radhey Lal was living in an independent portion having a separate tenancy, as observed by the learned Munsif in his order dated 24. 11. 88. There is no finding in the impugned order dated 17. 10. 90 that Radhey Lal was living with Jagannath in the portion under the tenancy of Jagannath at the time of the latters death. Hence Radhey Lal could not be treated as cotenant of the disputed portion, whose tenant become Sarju Prasad after the death of Jagannath and his wife. 12. It appears that a contempt petition was filed earlier being contempt petition No. 419 of 1987 when Sarju Prasad did not vacate the premises despite his undertaking, and in that contempt proceedings Sarju Prasad filed an affidavit that he had vacated the disputed premises on 16. 3. 87. This averment was clearly false as he had not vacated the premises but had handed it over to Radhey Lal, as is evident from the perusal of the order of the learned Munsif dated 24. 11. 88. 13. Thus, it is evident that Radhey Lal was not the tenant of the disputed premises and he had been fraudulently inducted in it to frustrate the decree in the eviction proceeding under Section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings Act which had been upheld by the judgment of this Court dated 16. 1. 87 in writ petition No. 2354 of 1987. 14. Apart from the above, in my opinion even assuming that Radhey Lal was also a cotenant in the disputed premises that till still be of no avail to him because it is "evident that he is the real brother of Sarju Prasad living in another portion of the same house and hence he clearly had knowledge of the proceedings under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings Act. Hence, even assuming that he was a co-tenant he cannot file a suit for temporary injunction after the decree of eviction had been passed under Section 21 of the Act. If he had any claim he should have filed an impleadment application in the proceedings under Section 21, but he did not do so. Hence, even assuming that he was a co-tenant he cannot file a suit for temporary injunction after the decree of eviction had been passed under Section 21 of the Act. If he had any claim he should have filed an impleadment application in the proceedings under Section 21, but he did not do so. It has been held in Smt. Anju Sharma v. S. C. Jain, 1993 (1) ARC 291, that when a tenant dies the heirs become joint tenants and not tenants in common, and a single tenancy devolves on the heirs. Hence even if a joint tenant is not impleaded in the eviction petition the eviction decree is not invalidated, and the decree operates against such joint tenants also. The same view has been taken in Shamse Alam v. District Judge, 1996 (1) A 525 (para 21 ). : 1996 (1) JCLR 847 (All) Hence, even if a co-tenant is not impleaded in the eviction proceedings it will not matter. 15. In my opinion, the order of Sri T. N. Misra, the then II Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar, is not only erroneous in law but prima facie it is also a collusive order which was passed in collusion between Sri Misra and Sarju Prasad and Radhey Lal in order to frustrate the eviction decree under Section 21 which had been upheld upto the High Court. 16. A practice has developed in recent years that after an eviction decree is upheld by the High Court or Supreme Court a second round of litigation is commenced through someone else to frustrate this decree. This practice has to be deprecated in the strongest terms, otherwise no eviction decree can ever be executed. 17. In my prima facie opinion, Sri T. N. Misra, the then II Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar, passed the impugned order dated 17. 10. 90 in defiance of the judgment of this Court in writ petition No. 2354 of 1987, decided on 16. 1. 87 and in collusion with Sarju Prasad and Radhey Lal. Hence, action has to be taken against him. 18. In my opinion, Sri T. N. Misra is prima fade guilty of contempt of court for committing flagrant defiance of this Courts decision in writ petition No. 2354 of 1987. 19. 1. 87 and in collusion with Sarju Prasad and Radhey Lal. Hence, action has to be taken against him. 18. In my opinion, Sri T. N. Misra is prima fade guilty of contempt of court for committing flagrant defiance of this Courts decision in writ petition No. 2354 of 1987. 19. Let the following charges be drawn up under Chapter XXXV-E of the High Court Rules against Sri T. N. Misra, the then II Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar, (wherever he maybe presently posted):- " (1) Sri T. N. Misra is charged with having committed flagrant violation of the judgment of this Court in writ petition No. 2354 of 1987 Sarju Prasad v. Additional District Judge, and others, decided on 16. 1. 87 inasmuch as he has by his order, dated 17. 10. 90 totally frustrated the aforesaid judgment of this Court in writ petition No. 2354 of 1987. " (2) Sri T. N. Misra is charged with having colluded with Sarju Prasad, the petitioner in writ petition No. 2354 of 1987, and Radhey Lal plaintiff in suit No. 720 of 1987 inasmuch has his order dated 17. 10. 90 appears to be totally in defiance of the judgment of this Court in writ petition No. 2354 of 1987 and appears to have been passed in collusion between Sarju Prasad and Radhey Lal. " Sarju Prasad and Radhey Lal are also charged under Chapter XXXV-E of the Rules of this Court with the following charges: " (1) Sarju Prasad, petitioner in writ petition No. 2354 of 1987 and Radhey Lal, plaintiff in suit No. 720 of 1987 are charged with* flagrant violation of the judgment of this Court in writ petition No. 2354 of 1987 decided on 16. 1. 87 inasmuch as they did not hand over the possession of the disputed premises to the Landlady Kanti Devi within three months of the date of the judgment in the aforesaid writ petition No. 2354 of 1987, despite the undertaking given in that case before the High Court," " (2) Radhey Lal and Sarju Prasad are charged with colluding with Sri T. N. Misra, the then II Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar, and obtaining a collusive order, dated 17. 10. 90 to frustrate the eviction decree in the petition under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings Act. 10. 90 to frustrate the eviction decree in the petition under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings Act. " The aforesaid charges shall be served on Sri T. N. Misra (wherever he is posted) and Sarju Prasad and Radhey Lal within two weeks from today by the Registrar of this Court, and they are directed to file their reply within two weeks thereafter. Sarju Prasad and Radhey Lal are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000 to the petitioner as special costs to be payable within a month from the date of this judgment. If the said amount shall not be paid to the petitioner within the aforesaid time, the same amount shall be recovered as land revenue by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, within one month thereafter and paid to the petitioner. 20. So far as the present writ petition No. 31151 of 1si90 is concerned it is allowed. The impugned order, dated 17. 10. 90 is also quashed. The Suit No. 720 of 1987 being a collusive suit is also quashed. The possession of the disputed premises will be given to Smt. Kanti Devi the petitioner, within a week on the production of the certified copy of this judgment before the District Magistrate or the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar, and the aforesaid authorities shall report compliance of this order to this court within a week thereafter. 21. Although this writ petition has been allowed, the case shall be listed again on 27. 3. 97 before the Honble Judge hearing contempt matters regarding the proceedings for contempt of court which have been initiated by this order alongwith the record of this petition as well as writ petition No. 2354of 1987, decided on 16. 1. 87. Petition allowed.