JUDGMENT Hon’ble D.P. Singh, J.—Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the caveator and perused the record. 2. This petition is directed against the orders dated 19.1.2009 and 16.12.2009 by which an application under Section 19 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been dismissed by the Courts below. 3. One Chandra Kishore was the tenant of a Almirah in the wall of a building belonging to the respondent landlord which he utilized as a shop. He died issueless in August 1992 whereupon the petitioner, Kanhaiya Lal claiming to be his adopted son occupied it. The respondent landlord moved an application under Sections 12 and 16 of the Act for declaration of vacancy and release before the Rent Controller which was registered as case No. 2 of 1995. After considering the evidence on record the Rent Controller having found that Kanhaiya Lal was not the adopted son of Chandra Kishore and was in an unauthorized occupation of the disputed premises, declared it vacant vide order dated 20.5.1996. The petitioner thereafter challenged the said order through Writ Petition No. 18918 of 1996 and obtained a stay order. After hearing the parties, the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 19.9.2002 on the ground that in Civil Suit No. 217 of 1993 filed by the petitioner it was held that he was not the adopted son of the original tenant Chandra Kishore and thus the order of vacancy was affirmed. The petitioner along with his real brother Sunil and brother of the original tenant, Ram Kumar filed an application for review of the vacancy order which was again rejected vide order dated 6.3.2003 which was subjected to challenge in a revision which was also dismissed on 5.5.2003. Again Kanhaiya Lal, the petitioner along with Sunil and Sumer preferred Writ Petition No. 21491 of 2003 and a learned Single Judge after contest dismissed the writ petition on 16.5.2003 with the finding that Kanhaiya Lal the petitioner cannot urge that he is the heir of deceased tenant Chandra Kishore whereafter his collateral Ram Kumar started a fresh innings and made yet another application for review on 22.11.2003 for setting aside the order declaring vacancy but the same was dismissed on 16.1.2004, the resultant revision was also dismissed on 3.2.2007. Thereafter they also challenged the said orders through Writ Petition No. 20973 of 2007 and this Court dismissed it vide order dated 27.4.2007 by the following order : “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.C. Nigam appearing for the contesting respondent. One Chandra Kishore was a tenant in the shop in dispute and when he died issueless an application for release was filed by the landlord respondent alleging that one Kanhaiya Lal, nephew of Chandra Kishore and uncle of the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation. The said Kanhaiya Lal claimed that he was the adopted son of Chandra Kishore and for such declaration he had filed Civil Suit No. 217 of 1993 where it was held that he was not the adopted son of Chandra Kishore. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer found that Kanhaiya Lal was in unauthorized occupation and as such declared vacancy on 20.5.1996. Kanhaiya Lal challenged the vacancy order through writ Petition No. 18918 of 1996 but the writ petition was dismissed on 19th September, 2002. Thereafter, Kanhaiya Lal and Sunil, the real brother of the petitioner preferred a review application to review the declaration of vacancy but it was rejected vide order dated 6.3.2003 and a revision preferred against the said order was also rejected vide order dated 5.5.2003. The said Kanhaiya Lal and Sunil, the real brother of the petitioner and his another collateral Sumer challenged the said two orders through Writ Petition No. 21491 of 2003 which again came to be rejected by a reasoned order dated 16.5.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner started a fresh innings and made an application for review on 22.11.2003 for setting aside declaration of vacancy. The application was rejected vide order dated 16.1.2004 and the resultant revision was also dismissed on 3.2.2007. The petitioner now challenges the said two orders dated 16.1.2004, 3.2.2007 and also orders dated 20.5.1996 and 6.3.2003. From the facts as noted above, it is evident that firstly the real uncle of the petitioner was unsuccessful in thwarting the execution of the vacancy order, thereafter, the real brother of the petitioner joined him and now the petitioner. On these facts the Court is not inclined to exercise its extra ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Rejected.” 4. On these facts the Court is not inclined to exercise its extra ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Rejected.” 4. Prior to it the release application was allowed on 6.3.2003 but due to pendency of various litigation by the petitioner or his brothers and collaterals the release order could not be executed and only after dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition on 27.4.2007 the respondent landlord was given possession on 5.7.2008. However, immediately after his eviction, he again preferred an application under Section 19 of the Act in September 2008 claiming that the respondent landlord had misused the release order inasmuch as instead of utilizing the Almirah, he has closed it down and therefore, the release order should be recalled and he be put into possession. The said application has been rejected by both the Courts below. 5. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that both the Courts below were wrong in rejecting his application as the respondent-landlord had misused the release order. In support thereof, he has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Jagannath Sahai Varma and another v. R.C. & E.O. Allahabad and others, 2001 (44) ALR 95. 6. The ratio laid down in the case of Jagannath Sahai Varma (supra) cannot be faulted but there the facts were entirely different. In that case after release on the ground of personal need under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act the landlord on the strength of an agreement allowed a person who was not a member of family to occupy the house and in these circumstances it was held that the order of deemed vacancy thereafter was justified. In the present case, it is apparent that the application for release was made in 1995 and after more than 8 years it was released in the year 2003 but the possession could be obtained by the landlord only in 2008. No doubt the release was on the ground that the landlord required it for its personal use but it is neither the case of the petitioner nor has it been found that the said Almirah was let out to any other person or has been put to any other use. No doubt the release was on the ground that the landlord required it for its personal use but it is neither the case of the petitioner nor has it been found that the said Almirah was let out to any other person or has been put to any other use. In fact both the Courts below have found on the evidence on record that the Almirah was situated in the wall of a building which was very old and the landlord was justified in closing the Almirah to save it from further deterioration. This finding of fact has not been shown to be erroneous at all and the argument there is bound to be rejected. 7. It is further evident that throughout the litigation either on behalf of the petitioner, his real brother or his Uncle, he has been found to occupy the premises as an unauthorized occupant. Admittedly, the petitioner was evicted from the disputed premises on 5.7.2008 and he made the application with a prayer for allotment and to be put into possession in September, 2008. Under Rule 10 (5) (d) read with sub Rule 6 the petitioner had no right whatsoever within a period of at least two years from the date of such eviction. Thus, even the application of the petitioner was not maintainable. 8. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Looking to the history of the case, it is apparent that the petitioner is unnecessarily harassing the respondent-landlord and as such the petition is dismissed with cost assessed at Rs. 10,000/- ————