JUDGMENT Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The respondent-landlord filed an application under section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 which was registered as P.A. case no. 12 of 2000 for release of the disputed premises inter-alia with the allegation that he had retired from Government service from the State of Himachal Pradesh and he wanted to settle at his native place at Etawah where he has no other accommodation except the disputed house. 3. The petitioner-tenant contested the suit inter-alia on the ground that earlier he was a tenant of the disputed premises where the landlady Smt. Ladaiti Devi had willed the house in his favour where-after he himself became owner thereof and that there was no landlord and tenant relationship between the respondent and the petitioner. During the pendency of the release application, the petitioner-tenant filed original suit no. 87 of 2002? for declaration of his title on the basis of the alleged will dated 2.10.1978. 4. After contest, the release application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 7.1.2004. The petitioner preferred an appeal no. 1 of 2004 where initially an interim order was granted staying his eviction. However, the petitioner kept on delaying the disposal of the appeal, forcing the appellate court to vacate the interim order whereupon the respondent-landlord filed an execution case no. 2 of 2009 where a writ of eviction was issued on 18.7.2009. In the meantime, the petitioner also filed a probate suit no. 14 of 2006 to obtain probate of the alleged will. 5. After issuing of writ of possession by the executing court, the petitioner preferred writ petition no.38077 of 2009 before this Court for a mandate directing the appellate authority not to decide the pending appeal till the disposal of the declaratary suit and the probate suit filed by the petitioner and further for a mandate to the executing court not to proceeding with the execution of the release order. Initially, a Learned Single Judge of this Court had granted an interim order on 30.7.2009. However, after contest, the writ petition was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 9.12.2009 with a direction to the appellate court to decide the appeal within six months but the interim order was discharged. Initially, a Learned Single Judge of this Court had granted an interim order on 30.7.2009. However, after contest, the writ petition was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 9.12.2009 with a direction to the appellate court to decide the appeal within six months but the interim order was discharged. Whereupon, the execution proceeded and a writ of possession was issued on 6.2.2010 and thus, this petition for quashing the aforesaid order dated 6.2.2010 and for mandate of staying the proceedings in the execution case till the disposal of the appeal. 6. The only argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is that since the appeal is pending, the execution case should not proceed. 7. From the facts, it is apparent that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court where one of the substantial issues was the same which is being reiterated again in this petition. Admittedly, the order dated 9.12.2009 passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner has become final. Apparently, this is a second petition on substantially the same cause of action which has been espoused by the petitioner in the earlier writ petition and therefore, the petition itself is not maintainable. 8. Even otherwise on the facts of this case, the Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.