Devendra Pratap Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This petition is directed against an order dated 27.2.2013 whereby the revisional court has fixed 8.3.2013 as the date for argument. 3. Before the court deals with the argument, it would be necessary to take note of the background facts. 4. The father of respondent nos. 1 and 2 instituted suit no. 12 of 1972 for arrears of rent and ejectment from the disputed premises against the father of the petitioner and proforma respondent nos. 3 and 4 claiming that he was the landlord of the disputed premises and the tenant fell in arrears of rent from 1.11.1965. However, the tenant denied the plaintiff's title but the suit was ultimately decided on 1.5.1974 and the plaintiff was found to be landlord. Yet again, the tenant fell in arrears of rent with effect from 1.1.1971 to 30.11.1974 against which a demand notice was issued and his tenancy was terminated and a suit no. 758 of 1975 was filed for eviction and arrears of rent. Again title was denied by the tenant and an issue to that effect was framed as issue no.2 where the plaintiff was held to be the landlord and since the tenant had denied title, he was held liable ejectment. Apart from that, the Court also found that the tenant had defaulted in payment of rent and therefore also he was liable for eviction vide its judgment and order dated 11.10.1983. 5. Aggrieved, the tenant preferred civil revision no.508 of 1983 and the same was dismissed by a reasoned order dated 25.7.1984. The tenant thereafter preferred writ petition no. 11077 of 1984 challenging the two orders wherein an interim order against eviction was granted on the condition of deposit. However, when the petition was taken up by the Court on 12.11.1999, counsel for the petitioner made a statement that he has no instruction in the case and consequently, the said writ petition was dismissed. However, a recall application was filed and the interim order already granted was resurrected vide order dated 11.11.2007. Subsequently, this writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 6.8.20012 and the interim order was also vacated. However, a recall application was filed and the interim order already granted was resurrected vide order dated 11.11.2007. Subsequently, this writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 6.8.20012 and the interim order was also vacated. The petitioner herein carried the matter before the Apex Court through a Special Leave to Appeal no.26065 of 2012 challenging the judgment of this Court dated 6.8.2012 but the Apex Court vide order dated 31.8.2012 dismissed the Special Leave to Appeal but, on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner he was granted time to vacate the premises on or before 30.6.2013 subject to filing of an undertaking to that effect. 6. It appears when the interim order had been vacated and the writ petition of the tenant was dismissed in 1999, the landlord filed an execution case no. 28 of 2002 where objection of the tenant under section 47 was rejected vide order dated 18.11.2006 against which the tenant preferred revision no. 663 of 2006 but no proceedings could be taken up due to the interim order of this Court but after dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal, the exeucting court proceeded with the execution and so also dates were fixed for hearing in the revision. 7. In between a suit no. 48 of 1986 was filed for eviction and damages against the tenant. However, the tenant claimed that a compromise has been reached in the said suit but it was disputed by the landlord and the tenant preferred a writ petition no.38551 of 2012 on the issue as to whether a substitution application had been filed or a compromise had been filed and the proceedings in the said suit have been stayed by this Court in writ petition no. 38551 of 2012. 8. In the revision filed by the petitioner against the dismissal of his objection under section 47, when a date was fixed for hearing he filed an application and came up with a case that the file of his counsel has been misplaced and the matter may be adjourned as certain documents which were on the record, were also not available but, by the impugned order dated 27.2.2013 the revisional court fixed a date for 8.3.2013 giving liberty to the petitioner to demonstrate the necessity of the documents to the court and in case the documents are not found to be necessary, he should argue the matter. This order is impugned in the present petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that since title suit is pending, he cannot be evicted from the disputed premises and the eviction proceedings have to be stayed. 10. It is evident from the record that all the four courts including the Apex Court has upheld the finding that the plaintiff was the landlord and the eviction decree had been upheld. It is also evident that the proceedings in the suit where allegedly title is also involved, has been stayed by this Court at the instance of the petitioner. 11. A perusal of the record also shows that the petitioner has applied all sorts of tactics to delay the eviction. In fact, even after the Apex Court granted indulgence on his prayer to vacate the premises by 30.6.2013 vide its order dated 31.8.2012, the petitioner did not vacate the premises and when confronted, he? states that since he has not filed any undertaking in pursuance of the order of the Apex Court, he would not vacate the premises. Judicial notice of the fact can be taken that once the Apex Court grants protection for certain period even upon an undertaking, the subordinate courts are very loath to proceed with the eviction though the undertaking may not have been filed. The petitioner has had his cake and eaten it too. Enjoyed the indulgence of the Apex Court now he defies it. More than 40 years have elapsed since filing of the suit and more than 35 years since the eviction order, the landlord has been denied the fruits of the decree. 12. On these fact not only the court declines interference, it would fail in its duty to ensure justice if it does not direct for eviction of the petitioner forthwith. 13. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with a direction to the Executing Court to handover the possession of the disputed premises to the contesting respondent within a week. The Senior Superintendent of Police upon request of the Executing Court shall provide adequate police force. ________________