JUDGMENT : - A.K. Yog, J. This writ petition arises out of the proceedings under U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short called 'the Act'). 2. THE facts of the case, in short, areas hereunder. House Nos. 804-A, 805,806 and 807 (commonly known as 'snow View Hotel') situate at Ranikhet (district Almora) in the State of U. P. (for short called the 'premises') is the subject of the present proceedings. One Trilochan Chand Joshi was the owner-cum-landlord of the 'premises' and after his death Jeevan Chand Joshi and eight others (Respondent Nos. 2 to 9) stepped into his shoes as his heirs/and legal representatives, called the 'landlords'. The premises were let out to one Devi Prasad Agarwal for running a lodging house, called the 'tenant'. 3. THE landlords filed an application under Section 16 read with Sections 12 and 25 of the Act (registered as Case No. 4 of 1995-1996) before the Court of Delegated Authority, Rahikhel-Annexure- 1 to the writ petition, on the ground tenant had sublet the premises to- (i) Bhuwan Chand Visht, (ii) Vijay Kumar Agrawal, (iii) P.O. Joshi/mamta Chaudhary, and (iv) Bimsen, who were living in their respective portions for the last several years on regular/permanent basis without landlords' consent, consequently there is vacancy on the ground of sub-letting as contemplated under the Act. 4. DEVI Prasad Agrawal (tenant) filed objections dated 25th October, 1996 (An-nexure-2 to the writ petition) denying the allegations in the release application. During pendency of the release application, Devi Prasad Agrawal died on 6th August, 1998. His two sons (namely Pradeep Agrawal and Kuldeep Agrawal-Respondent Nos. 10 and 11) were substituted as his heirs and legal representatives. 5. DELEGATED Authority directed Rent Control Inspector to enquire and submit his report, which was submitted by him on 9th September, 1996. Parties were afforded opportunity as they desired, to lead evidence; which included voters List, papers of Gas Connection, Ration Card, Hotel-Entry Register, documents-containing their ad dress submitted at their work place etc., Apart from it parties also led oral evidence. 6. DELEGATED Authority, after hearing arguments of the counsels appearing on behalf of respective parties, declared vacancy and directed the same to be notified as contemplated under law vide judgment and order dated 26th March, 1999 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). 6. DELEGATED Authority, after hearing arguments of the counsels appearing on behalf of respective parties, declared vacancy and directed the same to be notified as contemplated under law vide judgment and order dated 26th March, 1999 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). Against the aforesaid order dated 26th March, 1999, Pradeep Agrawal (Respondent No. 10) filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13417 of 1999 (Pradeep Agrawal v. Prescribed Authority and others) which was dismissed by learned single Judge vide judgment and order dated 17th April, 1999 (Annexure CA-4 to the counter-affidavit). 7. LEARNED Single Judge was, how ever, pleased to direct that petitioner (Pradeep Agrawal) may not be evicted for a period of three months from the date of the decision in the said petition. 8. SPECIAL Appeal No. 295 of 1999 (Pradeep Agrawal v. Prescribed Authority) was filed before this Court, which was dismissed by the Division Bench on the ground that no SPECIAL Appeal was maintainable vide judgment and order dated 6th May, 1999 (Annexure CA-5 to the counter-affidavit). It has also come in the counter-affidavit on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 9 that Pradeep Agrawal had filed Special Leave Petition in the Registry of the Supreme Court on 12th July, 1999 and therein challenged the High Court's order dated 17th April, 1999. (Paragraph Nos. 13, 14 and 15 of the counter-affidavit) Contesting Respondent Nos. 2 to 9 have placed complete Paper Book of the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9520 of 1999 and certified copy of Supreme Court judgment and order dated 2nd August, 1999 passed by Hon'ble Mr. B. N. Kripal and Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, JJ. for perusal of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the correctness of the same, which reads: "the Special Leave Petition is dismissed." 9. PAPER Book of the Special Leave Petition includes an affidavit dated 12th July, 1999 of Pradeep Agrawal (Particular page Nos. 19 and 20 of the Writ PAPER Book). Paragraph 4 of the said affidavit reads, "that the Special Leave Petition was drafted on 12th June, 1999 and the Vakalatnama was signed by we, the petitioners on 12th June, 1999." This is no explanation why he waited between 12th June, 1999to 12th July, 1999. 1. 4. 19 and 20 of the Writ PAPER Book). Paragraph 4 of the said affidavit reads, "that the Special Leave Petition was drafted on 12th June, 1999 and the Vakalatnama was signed by we, the petitioners on 12th June, 1999." This is no explanation why he waited between 12th June, 1999to 12th July, 1999. 1. 4. Pradeep Agrawal (Respondent No. 10) has forestalled eviction (of his as well as others with him, if any) from the premises for three months under High Court order dated 17th April, 1999 (Annexure GA- IV). Special Leave Petition was deliberately filed at the fag end of three months' period (granted by the High Court). It shows that Pradeep Agrawal alone was interested in the premises and bent upon to delay and procrastinate legal proceedings by adopting dilatory tactics. 15. It maybe noted that order declaring vacancy dated 25th March, 1999 (An-nexure-3 to the writ petition) has not been challenged by Kuldeep Agrawal (Respondent No. 11) even though he was a party before the Delegated Authority in Case No. 4 of 1995- 96. Said order declaring vacancy has thus become final against him. On the other hand, it became final against Pradeep Agrawal also on the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition (vide Supreme Court judgment and order dated 2nd August, 1999). 16. The present petitioner Smt. Hansmukhi Devi, who is mother of said Pradeep Agrawal, kept quiet. No one-except Pradeep Agrawal, who has lost up to Supreme Court, has been contesting throughout. None has so far asserted his right as such and none apparently has got 'interest' in the premises. 17. In paragraph 4 (wrongly described as Paragraph 3) and paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the Rejoinder Affidavit it is alleged that Smt. Hansmukhi Devi was not impleaded as heir of late Devi Prasad Agrawal even though she was necessary and proper party and that her sons Pradeep Agrawal and Kuldeep Agrawal (Respondent Nos. 10 and 11) had colluded with the landlords. In paragraph 7 of the Rejoinder Affidavit it is further alleged that no objection was raised by her sons gives rise to an irresistible interference that her sons colluded with the landlords. It is further alleged in paragraph 8 of the Rejoinder Affidavit that she had no knowledge or information about the proceeding of Rent Case No. 4/1995-96 (Jeevan Chand v. Devi Prasad Agrawal). It is further alleged in paragraph 8 of the Rejoinder Affidavit that she had no knowledge or information about the proceeding of Rent Case No. 4/1995-96 (Jeevan Chand v. Devi Prasad Agrawal). She alleges ignorance of the said case pending before the Prescribed Authority. It is alleged that when she came to know about the aforesaid conduct of her two sons (namely, Pradeep Agrawal and Kill-deep Agrawal colluding with landlord against her interest) she knocked the door for justice by filing an application for review of the order dated 26lh March, 1999. Her affidavit dated 3rd April, 1999in support of the said application is An-nexure-4 (particular pages 40 to 42 of the Writ PAPER Book). There is no averment as to how the came to know order dated 25th March, 1999 or her sons had colluded with landlord. 18. It will be pertinent to note here that Smt. Hansmukhi Devi in her Rejoinder Affidavit before this Court has made vague and evasive averments on vital points, e.g. , (i) she has not given date as to when the came to know about the progress of proceedings before the Prescribed Authority, (ii) when she came to know about the conduct of her own sons colluding with the landlord, (iii) when she moved an application for review of the order dated 26th March, 1999, and (iv) the date of alleged inspection of records (as averred in paragraph 10 of the petition) has not been disclosed. 19. It will be pertinent to mention here itself that even in the writ petition there is no mention of relevant dates. Reference' may be made to paragraph Nos. 10, 11 and 13 of the petition. Even the call application Annexure-4 does not contain the date and space has been left blank (page 39 of the Writ PAPER Book). From other documents on record it can, how ever, be 'found out that it was filed on 3rd April, 1999. Petitioner has filed copy of order dated 26th March, 1999 directing vacancy to be notified and fixing 5th April, 1999 for the hearing of the release/allotment application (particular page 37 of the Writ PAPER Book). The affidavit filed in support thereof (Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition) shows that these are dated 3rd April, 1999. 20. Petitioner has filed copy of order dated 26th March, 1999 directing vacancy to be notified and fixing 5th April, 1999 for the hearing of the release/allotment application (particular page 37 of the Writ PAPER Book). The affidavit filed in support thereof (Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition) shows that these are dated 3rd April, 1999. 20. From the aforesaid undisputed facts placed by the petitioner herself in the writ petition it is crystal clear that petitioner acquired knowledge of the order declaring vacancy dated 26th March, 1999 at least on or before 1st April, 1999 (since 2nd April, 1999) was a holiday-as mentioned by the petitioner herself in paragraph 9 of her application and her affidavit filed in support of the recall application (Annexure-4 to the writ petition-particular page 41 of the Writ PAPER Book). 21. The Delegated Authority rejected 'recall application' vide order dated 5th April, 1999. Petitioner admittedly had knowledge of the said order. Petitioner, however, did not apply for certified copy of this judgment immediately thereafter. Certified copy, annexed alongwith the writ petition (particular Page 44-A of the Writ PAPER Book), shows that certified copy was applied on 2nd July, 1999. It was notified to be ready on 13th July, 1999 and it was received on 13th July, 1999 itself. 22. There is no explanation nor even an iota of evidence or material to indicate as to why petitioner did not apply for obtaining certified copy (of the said order dated 5th April, 1999) prior to 2nd July, 1999 and as to why did she wait up to 2nd July, 1999 i.e., for about three months. 23. Petitioner is silent on these aspects, perhaps deliberately. In fact, as already noted above, her son Pradeep Agrawal had already filed writ petition in this Court on 31st March, 1999, which was dismissed on 17th April, 1999. In paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit it is stated that case was heard on 5th April, 1999 and judgment reserved. Pradeep Agrawal, appeals to have anticipated result (on the basis of the arguments and observations of the Court) and that is why on 17th April, 1999 his counsel made request for protecting eviction of said Pradeep Agrawal this Court granted protection to said Pradeep Agrawal (son of the petitioner) for three months (particular page 28 of the Writ PAPER Book). Pradeep Agrawal, appeals to have anticipated result (on the basis of the arguments and observations of the Court) and that is why on 17th April, 1999 his counsel made request for protecting eviction of said Pradeep Agrawal this Court granted protection to said Pradeep Agrawal (son of the petitioner) for three months (particular page 28 of the Writ PAPER Book). It does not stand to reason why, Pradeep Agrawal, son of the petitioner required protection of his possession and/or wanted to help the landlords-if he was not in possession. Further why did he filed Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court if he was colluding with landlord, as alleged by Sml. Hansmukhi Devi. 24. This Court finds itself unable to believe petitioner's story of her sons colluded with landlord (against their own mother-the present petitioner). In para graph 14 of the Writ Petition she states "they (landlord) are trying to evict the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 10 and 11. . . . " Evidently the truth has unwittingly and unconsciously fallen from the lips. 25. It is clear, when Pradeep Agrawal realised on 5th April, 1999 that he was not going lo succeed in said Writ Petition No. 13417 of 1999, he activated the proceedings through Smt. Hansmukhi Devi (present petitioner) who applied for certified copy of judgment and order dated 5th April, 1999 for filing present petition. 26. To repeat, in paragraph 8 of the writ petition and paragraph Nos. 4 and 7 of the Rejoinder Affidavit nor in her recall application and supporting affidavit filed therein dated 3rd April, 1999 (Annexurc-4 of the writ petition) there is no mention regarding collusion of the landlord with her sons. 27. Meanwhile, Pradeep Agrawal made another attempt to forestall proceedings for eviction by filing Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. 28. In Paragraph 8 of the writ petition it is alleged that Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 did not contest the case properly and fairly she has disclosed nowhere, at any stage as to what more she expected from her son or where is the laxity shown by her son. She does not disclose, if she was given opportunity, what more could be placed by her before Court. 29. 10 and 11 did not contest the case properly and fairly she has disclosed nowhere, at any stage as to what more she expected from her son or where is the laxity shown by her son. She does not disclose, if she was given opportunity, what more could be placed by her before Court. 29. The irresistible conclusion is that allegations are concocted and fabricated and made as a pretext to 'revive entire litigation' for the benefit of her son Pradeep Agrawal, who has already lost up to Supreme Court. 30. Petitioner has made wild allegations, without basis and without filing material in support t hereof and also without impleading the Delegated Authority by name in support of her serious allegations against the person of the Delegated Authority contained in paragraph Nos. 14, 15 and 20 of the writ petition. In Paragraph 15 of the writ petition also the petitioner has not disclosed the crucial dates nor filed copy of alleged complaint lodged by her against the Delegated Authority. Averments in Paragraph Nos. 11, 14 and 15 of the writ petition have been made deliberately exaggerated with ulterior motive so as to prejudice and mislead the Court. 31. Again petitioner has given no particulars or details of event nor filed single document or material and failed to establish the circumstance, in support of her averments-"she would have led evidence establishing that the premises in dispute is still being used as lodging house and there was no sub- letting" as alleged in paragraph 17 of the writ petition. In Paragraph 26 of the writ petition also it is alleged that "she has no other source of income to fall back upon" but she has not given any details, particulars nor filed any material or evidence lo show that she was receiving rental income from the premises. Bald assertions, in the facts of present case and her failure to disclose anything in support of her allegations of collusion of her son with landlord cannot be accepted. 32. It will not be out of place to mention that in Paragraph Nos. Bald assertions, in the facts of present case and her failure to disclose anything in support of her allegations of collusion of her son with landlord cannot be accepted. 32. It will not be out of place to mention that in Paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 of the counter-affidavit, it is mentioned that petitioner Smt. Hansmukhi Devi was un conscious and speechless and admitted in some hospital at Bareilly and she was not in position to file this writ petition and that the present petition has been filed actually by Pradeep Agrawal by proxy in the name of Smt. Hansmukhi Devi. It is also mentioned therein that the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is sworn by Jawahar Singh as Pairokar, who, in fact, is an employee of same Pradeep Agrawal (son of the petitioner) and a'. io that said Jawahar Singh never came to Allahabad. 33. A Rejoinder Affidavit has been filed purported to have been sworn by Sml. Hansmukhi Devi on 29th August, 1999. In Paragraph 10 of the Rejoinder Affidavit it is alleged that she had deputed Jawahar Singh to go to Allahabad for filing writ petition on her behalf since it was physically impossible for her to cover the distance up to Allahabad. Curiously, contents of Para graph 16 of the counter-affidavit have not been denied and they are, on the other hand, impliedly admitted. It is not categorically denied that she was not admitted in a hospital at Bareilly. It is also not denied she was unconscious and speechless at the relevant time. It shows, she was not in a position to instruct and depute Jawahar Singh as her 'pairokar'. There is no explanation why she chose Jawahar Singh, as her Pairokar, who was employee of her son who had colluded, according to her, with the landlord (her opponent) and was also prospective allot tee as per writ Anncxurc-2. 34. Stand taken by the contesting Respondents in their counter-affidavit that present writ petition is being filed by Pradeep Agrawal by proxy in the name of her mother Sml. Hansmukhi Devi, appears to be correct. 35. 34. Stand taken by the contesting Respondents in their counter-affidavit that present writ petition is being filed by Pradeep Agrawal by proxy in the name of her mother Sml. Hansmukhi Devi, appears to be correct. 35. It is Pradeep Agrawal who is playing second innings in the name of his mother for challenging the order of vacancy dated 26th March, 1999 and thereby circumventing the judgment of the High Court dated 17th April, 1999 (Annexure CA-6 to the counter-affidavit) and the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 2nd August, 1999 (quoted above in this judgment). The above conclusion is drawn from the circumstance that along with writ petition 'vakalantnama' of the petitioner, is allegedly signed by Smt. Hansmukhi Devi. 36. It is also interesting to note that the Rejoinder Affidavit does not bear signatures of said Smt. Hansmukhi Devi. There is no explanation in the Rejoinder Affidavit as to why she has put thumb impressions and not affixed her signatures in the said Rejoinder Affidavit while she allegedly signed her Vakalatnama (attached with the writ petition). 37. It will be seen that in Paragraph 15 of the writ petition it is alleged that petitioner applied for certified copy of the order dated 5th April, 1999, but it was not issued to her until she lodged complaint in writing to the District Magistrate. In Para graph 15 of the petition, petitioner deliberately concealed the date as to when she had applied for certified copy of the order dated 5th April, 1999. In the said Paragraph itself it is also mentioned "a true copy of the aforesaid order dated 5-4-1999 (which has been faxed after receipt of the certified copy) is being enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. " This statement is also apparently incorrect and the certified copy of the order dated 5th April, 1999 filed (at particular pages 44-45 of the Writ PAPER Book) shows that copy of it was applied on 2nd July, 1999 only. The petitioner has deliberately not indicated the date as to when she had first applied for the copy. The certified copy having been applied on 2nd July, 1999 was ready on 13th July, 1999 and the same was taken on the same date (as per certified copy of t he order dated 5th April, 1999 filed along with the writ petition). The certified copy having been applied on 2nd July, 1999 was ready on 13th July, 1999 and the same was taken on the same date (as per certified copy of t he order dated 5th April, 1999 filed along with the writ petition). Incorrect and misleading allegations in Paragraph 14 of the writ petition against the Delegated Authority have been made in order to cover up her deliberate inaction between 26th March, 1999 to 13th July, 1999 in order to justify presentation of the writ petition on 19th July, 1999. 38. There is another interesting aspect of the case, which goes to affirm the conclusion drawn by this Court. In Para graph 14 of the writ petition it is stated, ". . . . . . . However, it appears that the real intention of the present landlords turned dishonest. They are trying to evict the petitioner and respondent Nos. 10 and 11 from premises in dispute by any manner, fair or foul." 39. Unwittingly, the truth has fallen from lips, as otherwise it would not have been mentioned that landlords want to evict the Respondent Nos. 10 and 11. Smt. Hansmukhi Devi is alleging that her sons (Respondent Nos. 10 and" 11) have not conducted the case seriously being in collusion with the landlords. This is not correct Pradeep Agrawal contested the matter throughout and left no stone unturned to overcome the order of declaration of vacancy. 40. Averment contained in the writ petition, as such, do not inspire confidence. 41. Contesting Respondent Nos. 2 to 9 also filed supplementary counter-affidavit after serving copy on the counsel for the petitioner on 6th August, 1999. Petitioner did not propose to file reply and did not even asked for time for this purpose. 42. In Paragraph 3 of the supplementary counter-affidavit, it is slated that Pradeep Agrawal had filed revision against the judgment and order dated 22nd July, 1999 passed by Prescribed Authority releasing the premises and 9th August, 1999 was fixed before the Delegated Authority. In Paragraph Nos. 42. In Paragraph 3 of the supplementary counter-affidavit, it is slated that Pradeep Agrawal had filed revision against the judgment and order dated 22nd July, 1999 passed by Prescribed Authority releasing the premises and 9th August, 1999 was fixed before the Delegated Authority. In Paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the supplementary counter-affidavit it is mentioned that Pradeep Agrawal will also do Pairvi on behalf of his deceased father (Devi Prasad Agrawal) and that in another case relating to "rajdeep Hotel" (which was released in favour of its landlord) he succeeded in his black mailing adventure By 'creating a situation that compelled its ' landlord lo pay rupees seven1 lacs to said Pradeep Agrawal before he could assume possession of the same. 43. The said facts in the supplementary counter-affidavit as stated above have not controverted. 44. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, relied upon the case of Gopal Krishna Awasthi v. District Judge, Allahabad and others, 1986 (1) All Rent Cases 254, Paragraph 15 of this judgment reads: " (15) If. as hold, ii was imperative to serve a notice upon Sml. Bhagwati Awasthi before the question of deemed vacancy could be decided after the death of Sri Babu Ram Awasthi, the mere fact that she had knowledge of the proceedings or that failure to serve a notice upon her did not visit her with any prejudice, would hardly matter. Giving of a notice to a tenant, in the case of a deemed vacancy under Section 12 (4) has been made imperative by the proviso 10 Section 16 (1). A notice under that proviso must be given as ruled by the Supreme Court in Yogendra Tewari v. District Judge, Farukhabad and others, 1984 (10) ALR 285 (SC). " 45. In the said case, one who was impleaded was not served. This Court held that it was imperative to serve notice upon all the parties in the case and the mere fact that one had knowledge of the proceedings did not matter. The ratio laid in the case, cannot he disputed. 46. The facts of the present case are, however, entirely different. After the death of the original tenant Devi Prasad Agrawal, landlord claimed his two sons to be his heirs and legal representatives for the purposes of the proceeding under the Act. Noneol the two sons of deceased Devi Prasad Agrawal objected lo it. 46. The facts of the present case are, however, entirely different. After the death of the original tenant Devi Prasad Agrawal, landlord claimed his two sons to be his heirs and legal representatives for the purposes of the proceeding under the Act. Noneol the two sons of deceased Devi Prasad Agrawal objected lo it. Wile of the deceased tenant Smt. Hansmukhi Devi (present petitioner) also did not come for ward who is evidently on good terms with her sons (otherwise Jawahar Singh-employee of Pradeep Agrawal would not have been her Pairokar). She made no claim in spite of knowledge of the proceedings as is evident maybe useful to mention that Sml. Hansmukhi Devi has deliberately concealed her correctly address by showing it herself-resident of House No. 789, Amarnath Building Ranikhet. (District Almorah) which is commonly known as Alka Hotel'. If one looks back to the 'recall application' and the 'affidavit filed in support thereof (An-nexure-4 to the writ petition) it will be found that said Smt. Hansmukhi Devi had given her address as owner/tenant 'show View Hotel', Ranikhet, District Almorah. There is no valid or plausible reason on record as to why Smt. Hansmukhi Devi has changed her address. The only reason, which is evident, is that she now wants to espouse the cause of her son who has lost up to Supreme Court. 47. It will be recalled that once Pradeep Agrawal lost up to Supreme Court and order of declaration of vacancy dated 26th March, 1999 being final and having merged in the subsequent orders, the approach of Smt. Hansmukhi Devi cannot be justified. It would have been appropriate that, immediately on having come to know of the judgment and order dated 2nd August, 1999 passed by Supreme Court, she would have been better advised to approach the Apex Court for recalling of that order. Aforesaid conclusion is further supported by the decisions of the Apex Court reported in: (1) 1998 (2) ARC 542 (Paragraph 4 to 6) (2) 1999 (1) AWC 87 (Paras 2 and 4). 48. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in the case of joint tenancy act of one will bind another, as held in following cases: (1) (1999)2scg458. (2) AIR 1996 SC 1735 (Paragraphs 7 and 8). 49. 48. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in the case of joint tenancy act of one will bind another, as held in following cases: (1) (1999)2scg458. (2) AIR 1996 SC 1735 (Paragraphs 7 and 8). 49. It is queer that Smt. Hansmukhi Devi has also not disclosed as to how she came to know of the order dated 26th March, 1999 (within six days of its passing) since she admittedly filed application dated 3-4- 1999 for its recalling (page 46 of Writ PAPER Book ). 50. Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that present proceedings are abuse of process of Court and an attempt to carry litigation by proxy. According to him it is Pradeep Agrawal who is scatting fence and getting the present petition conducted in the name of his mother Smt. Hansmukhi Devi since he (Pradeep Agrawal) has already lost up to Supreme Court. It cannot he permitted as held by the Apex Court in (1) (1999) 2 SCC 458 and (2) AIR 1996 SC 1735 (Paragraphs 7 and 8). 51. No one can be permitted to abuse process of Court. Learned counsel for the Respondent further submitted that petitioner Smt. Hansmukhi Devi is not entitled to relief under Article 226, Constitution of India, as held by this Court in the cases reported in: (1) AIR 1972 All 84 (R.I,. Gulati, J.) (2) 1977uprcc 139 (N. D. Ojha,. J.) (3) (1997) 2 SCX: 397-writ not as of course. (4) (1997) 2scx:993.-No Writ in case of disputed facts. 52. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the last, made reference to the decision reported in Suresh Chandra Jain v. Ajay Krishna Goswami and others, 1993 (2) ARC 484. The facts of the two cases are different. In the case of Suresh Chandra Jain (supra), it was the same party which was litigating and agitating the matter time and again. Apex Court imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 15,000. In the present case, however, Smt. Hansmukhi Devi was, at least, a party to the proceedings earlier. She is, however, non-suited on the ground that she has failed to establish her case of collusion between the landlord and Pradeep Agrawal. 53. I am in agreement with the contention of learned counsel for the Respondent and find that Sml. Hansmukhi Devi-petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed. 54. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed with costs, which 1 quantify at Rs. 53. I am in agreement with the contention of learned counsel for the Respondent and find that Sml. Hansmukhi Devi-petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed. 54. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed with costs, which 1 quantify at Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), which shall be deposited by the petitioner on or before 31-1-2000 in the Court of Delegated Authority (dealing with the case) vide an Account Payee Bank Draft' drawn in favour of Ramesh Chandra Joshi (Respondent No. 3) for the benefit of Respondent Nos. 2 to 9. In case costs are not deposited, the same shall be recovered by the Delegated Authority (Respondent No. 1) as land revenue through the District Magistrate and it shall be reimbursed to the contesting Respondents No. 2 to 9 as indicated above through Ramesh Chand Joshi (Respondent No. 2). Petition dismissed.