A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) CONSIDERING the facts of the case which have already been recorded by this Court by passing judgment and order dated 10. 12. 2001 (Annexure-III to the writ petition) in W. P. No. 41349 of 2001, Maqsood Akhtar Badshah v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad and Ors. , between the same parties, same accommodation and arising from the same bundle of facts. ( 2 ) XTH-ADDITIONAL District Judge. Allahabad, respondent No. 2 initially granted Interim order on the basis of undertaking given on 11. 1. 2002 by the opposite parties and subsequently extended by the Court vide order dated 17. 1. 2002 as per order sheet filed as Annexure-VI to the writ petition. ( 3 ) MEMO of Revision No. 1766 of 2001, S. M. Jaffar Hussain through its attorney Masood akhtar v. Homudul Hasan Jafri, has been filed as Annexure-IV to the writ petition. Memo of revision itself shows that S. M. Jaffar Hussain has now appeared through its alleged attorney maqsood Akhtar who had already lost from this Court as aforesaid Writ Petition No. 41349 of 2001 filed by him has already been dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 10. 12. 2001 (Annexure-III to the writ petition ). Revision No. 1766 of 2001 prima facie appears to be litigation by proxy and hence abuse of process of Court. ( 4 ) PRIMA facie the said Revision No. 1766 of 2001 is a clear gross abuse of process of Court and law since the actual revisionist is Maqsood Akhtar, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 41349 of 2001 and the said revision has apparently been filed as proxy in the name of S. M. Jaffar Hussain. ( 5 ) THE fact that Maqsood Akhtar alleges to have been appointed authorised as attorney of S. M. Jaffar Hussain was not brought to the notice of the Court in the proceedings of Writ Petition No. 41349 of 2001, which was dismissed only on 10. 12. 2001. ( 6 ) RENT Control Revision No. 1766 of 2001 has admittedly been presented after statutory period of limitation and Section 5 of application for condonation of delay pending. Hence there was no occasion for the court below to pass Interim order when no case in the eyes of law can be said to be pending before the said Court. ( 6 ) RENT Control Revision No. 1766 of 2001 has admittedly been presented after statutory period of limitation and Section 5 of application for condonation of delay pending. Hence there was no occasion for the court below to pass Interim order when no case in the eyes of law can be said to be pending before the said Court. ( 7 ) SINCE the present petitioner has already filed his objection before the court below, it will be appropriate that the case be heard by respondent No. 2 and decided in accordance with law, keeping in view the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Chand Jain v. Jai Krishna goswami and Ors. 1993 (2) ARC 484 (SC), which is reproduced for ready reference : "this case is of sheer abuse of the process of the Court. The respondents suffered an ex parte decree which this Court ultimately confirmed and dismissed the S. L. P. No. 8382 of 1992 on July 9, 1992. The respondents also had given an undertaking that they will vacate the premises within three months from the date of the High Court order. The High Court order was on July, 1, 1992 reported in 7992 (2) ARC 246. They did not vacate. Again they launched upon the second front of litigation and filed a Writ Petition No. 34606 of 1992 which was dismissed by the High Court on August 18, 1992 in 1992 (2) ARC 645. Thereafter a Regular Suit No. 400 of 1992 was got filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Mathura, though proxy for declaration and injunction. Civil suit was dismissed on September 1, 1992, which was confirmed by the Division Bench of the high Court on September 30, 1992. Again in the third round of litigation in execution objecting as to jurisdiction was raised but disallowed by the executing court. Two proceedings were initiated against that order one before the Second Additional Civil Judge. Mathura and another by the writ petition in which the Impugned orders came to be made. It is stated that the High court has heard the matter and the orders were served. That order does not detain us from disposing of the matter on merits. Two proceedings were initiated against that order one before the Second Additional Civil Judge. Mathura and another by the writ petition in which the Impugned orders came to be made. It is stated that the High court has heard the matter and the orders were served. That order does not detain us from disposing of the matter on merits. As stated earlier, this process adopted by the respondents is in sheer abuse of the process of the Court and cannot be permitted to agitate the matter even on points of jurisdiction. The appeals are allowed the exemplary costs fixed at Rs. 15. 000. The orders of the High Court as well as of the district court are set aside. The execution court is directed to give police assistance and to deliver the possession of the property within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of this order. " ( 8 ) THE court below shall decide the matter, as expeditiously as possible and in any case, preferably within three months of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. It is, however, made clear that court below shall decide the matter before it exercising its unfettered discretion without being influenced by any of the observations made above on the basis of record before it and in accordance with law. ( 9 ) WRIT petition is dismissed as premature at this stage subject to the observations made above. .