JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This writ petition came to this Court, having been assigned by Hon’ble Senior Judge, vide order dated 19.2.2013, after the Hon’ble S.U.Khan, J, who heard it on 18th February, 2013, recused himself. 2. Sri Pramod Kumar Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rishi Chaddha, Advocate has put in appearance and advanced submissions on behalf of petitioner while respondent No. 2 is represented by Sri Arvind Srivastava, Advocate. 3. The writ petition is directed against order dated 30th January, 2013 (Annexure 14 to the writ petition) passed by Additional City Magistrate II/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as “RCEO”), issuing form ‘C’ under Rule 14 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1972”), directing petitioner to hand over vacant possession of disputed property to the respondent No. 2 by 14th February, 2013, failing which further steps for his forcible ejectment from disputed premises shall be taken. 4. The facts in brief giving rise to the present dispute are as under: 5. The dispute relates to house No. 23, Kanpur Road, Allahabad whereof certain part is non residential and in the tenancy of petitioner. An application for declaration of vacancy and allotment of accommodation under Sections 12(1) and 16 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1972”) was filed by one Visheshwar Dayal Agarwal which was registered as Case No. 10 of 1996 before RCEO (I), Allahabad. The vacancy was declared by RCEO’s order dated 22nd September, 1997. The landlords i.e. respondent No. 2 and Satish Kumar Agarwal, resident of 25, Kanpur Raod, Allahabad vide application dated 26th September, 1997 prayed for release of accommodation, which was considered and allowed by RCEO’s order dated 5.11.1997. The aforesaid two orders came to be assailed in writ petition No. 35774 of 1997. 6. In the meantime there was a Small Cause Suit No. 15 of 1988 instituted by landlords Prem Kumar and Satish Kumar, in the Court of Small Cause/IInd Additional District Judge, Allahabad, seeking ejectment of petitioner tenant from disputed accommodation on the ground of subletting. The suit was decreed by trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.5.1995 whereagainst petitioner-tenant preferred civil revision No. 328 of 1995 before this Court. 7. The suit was decreed by trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.5.1995 whereagainst petitioner-tenant preferred civil revision No. 328 of 1995 before this Court. 7. Since writ petition No. 35774 of 1997 and Civil Revision No. 328 of 1995 relate to the same property, both were consolidated, heard and decided together, vide judgment dated 5.12.2005. This Court allowed revision and writ petition filed by petitioner-tenant, and, quashed judgment and decree of small cause Court as well as two orders of RCEO. The Court however, enhanced rent to Rs. 8,000/- per month and directed petitioner-tenant to pay the same w.e.f. January, 2006. 8. The respondent No. 2 and co-landlord Satish Kumar Agarwal carried the matter to Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5598 of 2006. The Court while issuing notice, referred the matter to larger Bench; as under : “Heard learned counsel for the parties at great length. We are of the opinion that important questions of law including the question of applicability of the principle of lifting the veil of corporate personality are involved in this case and these require an authoritative pronouncement of a larger Bench. Hence, we refer the matter to a larger Bench. Let the papers of this case be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger Bench. Issue notice on Interlocutory Application No. 3. Until further orders, we direct the tenant-respondent to pay rent to the landlord-appellants at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) per month from 1st January, 2010.” 9. On 9th January, 2012 the Apex Court passed following order: “Ms. Niranjana Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has stated that Respondent No. 1 undertakes to deposit the entire arrears as per the order passed by this Court on 3.2.2010, at the rate of 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) per month by 3rd February, 2012 in the trial Court and the applicant-appellant shall be at liberty to withdraw the rent at the rate of 8000/- (Eight Thousand) per month from the said amount. The balance amount shall be invested in a short term deposit for the benefit of the successful party. The respondent No. 1 shall continue to deposit the said rent every month by 10th day of each calender month. List after proof of payment is made.” 10. The balance amount shall be invested in a short term deposit for the benefit of the successful party. The respondent No. 1 shall continue to deposit the said rent every month by 10th day of each calender month. List after proof of payment is made.” 10. It appears that petitioner-tenant committed default in compliance with the above directions contained in interim orders dated 3.2.2010 and 9.1.2012 resulting in institution of contempt petition (C) No. 420 of 2011. 11. The civil appeal as well as contempt petition both came for consideration before a three judge Bench of Apex Court on 4.9.2012 and order passed by it reads as under: “Mr. Harish Khurana-respondent No. 1 is present in person. He submits that towards rent from January 1, 2010 till date, he has deposited Rs. 7,50,000/- (rupees seven lakhs fifty thousand only) in pursuance of the order dated February 3, 2010 and subsequent orders passed by this Court. He admits that he is in arrears of payment of rent for the above period and has not honoured the undertaking given to this Court through his advocate on January 9, 2012. He submits that due to financial constraints, he could not deposit the rent as per the order dated February 3, 2010 every month on time. He seeks indulgence for clearing the entire arrears of rent from January 1, 2010 till August 31, 2012 by October 15, 2012. He further undertakes that insofar as rent for the month of September, 2012 and subsequent months is concerned, he shall faithfully abide by the directions of this Court and deposit rent every month henceforth on or before 10th of each succeeding month. 2. Though the learned counsel for the applicants-appellants seriously opposes the request made by the respondent No. 1 but in the interest of justice, we are inclined to grant one opportunity to the respondent No. 1 to clear the dues of rent up to August 31, 2012 by October 15, 2012 and continue to deposit the monthly rent from September 2012 as already directed in the earlier orders of this Court. 3. Respondent No. 1-Harish Khurana is, accordingly, granted time up to October 15, 2012 to deposit the entire arrears of rent @ Rs. 50,000/- per month from January 1, 2010 to August 31, 2012. For the month of September, 2012 and subsequent months, the respondent No. 1 shall deposit the rent @ Rs. 3. Respondent No. 1-Harish Khurana is, accordingly, granted time up to October 15, 2012 to deposit the entire arrears of rent @ Rs. 50,000/- per month from January 1, 2010 to August 31, 2012. For the month of September, 2012 and subsequent months, the respondent No. 1 shall deposit the rent @ Rs. 50,000/- per month on or before 10th of each succeeding month. 4. In default of the above directions or any one of them, the impugned order of the High Court dated December 5, 2005 shall stand set aside and the order dated May 15, 1997 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Allahabad and orders dated September 22, 1997 and November 5, 1997 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad shall stand restored. 5. No request for extension of time for deposit of arrears of rent or monthly rent shall be entertained on any ground whatsoever. 6. Upon compliance, Civil Appeal alongwith the contempt Petition shall come up for consideration in due course.” 12. The subsequent events have given rise to the present dispute. It is claimed by petitioner that he submitted an application on 7.10.2012 through Sri Surendra Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, appearing in the Court below i.e. in the Court of Special Judge, E.C. Act, Allahabad, requesting to pass Tender of Rs. 50,000/- attached with said application so as to comply Apex Court’s order dated 4.9.2012. A photocopy of certified copy of the said application and order passed thereon issued to the petitioner on 7.2.2013 has been annexed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition, which shows that application dated 7.10.2012, marked as paper No. 43C, was filed on 8.10.2012 and on 9.10.2012, Special Judge, E.C. Act, passed following order: “O_____ Put up with file.” 13. The aforesaid order also contains initial of Presiding officer of Court below. An affidavit in support of aforesaid application said to have been sworn on 10.10.2012 is also claimed to have been filed which is paper No. 45C/1. Photocopy of certified copy of said affidavit has been filed, which shows seal of Oath Commissioner dated 10.10.2012 and also the fact that certified copy thereof was prepared and issued on 7.2.2013. 14. It is pointed out that from 1.1.2010 the petitioner tenant was required to deposit Rs. 50,000/- per month up to 31st August, 2012. Photocopy of certified copy of said affidavit has been filed, which shows seal of Oath Commissioner dated 10.10.2012 and also the fact that certified copy thereof was prepared and issued on 7.2.2013. 14. It is pointed out that from 1.1.2010 the petitioner tenant was required to deposit Rs. 50,000/- per month up to 31st August, 2012. The total amount of rent upto 31.8.2012 as per the aforesaid orders, comes to Rs. 16 lacs, out of which Rs. 7,50,000/- was already deposited by petitioner-tenant, which is also mentioned in Apex Court order dated 4.9.2012 and rest Rs. 8,50,000/- was deposited on 13.10.2012. There remained payable monthly rent for the month of September, 2012 and onwards and hence vide application dated 7.10.2012, paper No. 43C-1, the petitioner tenant sought to deposit Rs. 50,000/- but lower Court took some time in passing order for clearing Tender, and therefore, delay occurred in payment of aforesaid rent is not for any fault on the part of petitioner-tenant. It is submitted that Apex Court’s direction that monthly rent shall be paid on or before 10th of each succeeding month was substantially complied with, and, there is no default therefore, RCEO in passing impugned order, treating as if monthly rent has not been deposited by 10th of the month, has committed patent error and, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 15. Sri Pramod Kumar Jain, learned counsel submitted that after tender was passed by Court below, monthly rent payable for September, 2012 through Tender/Challan was deposited on 12.10.2012 and for subsequent months, monthly rent is being deposited regularly as per directions of Apex Court. He also referred to order dated 30.11.2012 passed by Special Judge, (E.C. Act)/Additional District Judge, Allahabad in Execution Case No. 3 of 1995, disposing of landlord-decree holder’s application No. 47C to execute decree, since tenant has failed to deposit monthly rent payable for the month of September, 2012 by 10th October, 2012 observing that since all the facts are before Apex Court, therefore, no further action is needed at his level. 16. 16. Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 has filed counter-affidavit and made serious allegations of manipulation and forgery in the record of Court below so as to discredit entire case set up by petitioner-tenant to explain circumstances in which he could deposit rent payable for the month of September, 2012 only on 12th October, 2012, i.e. after 10.12.2012, the due date. 17. Besides, he also pointed out that entire rent has not been paid by petitioner-tenant, inasmuch as, this Court vide judgment dated 5.12.2005 directed petitioner tenant to deposit rent @ Rs. 8,000/- per month w.e.f. January, 2006 and Apex Court directed further higher rate of rent i.e. Rs. 50,000/- per month w.e.f. 1.1.2010. From January, 2006 to December, 2009, the amount of rent fell due against petitioner tenant is Rs. 3,64,000/- and from January, 2010 to 31st August, 2012 the amount of rent, fell due, came to Rs. 16 lacs. 18. Sri Srivastava, submitted that from February, 2006 to October, 2007, petitioner-tenant had deposited a total sum of Rs. 1,36,000/- as per details given in para 15 of his counter-affidavit and thereafter paid nothing for subsequent period except of deposit of Rs. 7,50,000/- and Rs. 8,50,000/- under the orders of Apex Court as noticed in order dated 4.9.2012. He further submitted that no application was filed by petitioner-tenant seeking deposit of rent for the month of September, 2012 either on 7.10.2012 or 8.10.2012 or 9.10.2012 or 10.10.2012. No such application was ever served upon counsel for respondent-landlord between 7.10.2012 to 10.10.2012 and in fact no order was passed by Court below on 9.10.2012. He has brought on record a certified copy of alleged application dated 7.10.2012, paper No. 43-C, as Annexure C.A.5 which was made available to him by the office of Court below on 17.11.2012. A photocopy of certified copy of application dated 7.10.2012 is on page 46 of counter-affidavit and endorsement on left side column said to have been made by Presiding Officer, is as under: “O Put up with file. Special Judge E.C.Act 9.10.2012" 19. There is no signature or initial of Presiding Officer on the aforesaid endorsement in certified copy, which is a photo-stat certified copy of application dated 7.10.2012 though on the left side column the date of receipt of said application is mentioned in the following words: “filed by S.K.Srivastava, Advocate 8.10.2012" 20. Special Judge E.C.Act 9.10.2012" 19. There is no signature or initial of Presiding Officer on the aforesaid endorsement in certified copy, which is a photo-stat certified copy of application dated 7.10.2012 though on the left side column the date of receipt of said application is mentioned in the following words: “filed by S.K.Srivastava, Advocate 8.10.2012" 20. He submitted, that the certified copy, appended by petitioner alongwith writ petition said to have been prepared and issued on 7.2.2013 is actually a subsequently manipulated and manufactured document. 21. Finding apparent difference and contradiction in the two copies of the same document i.e. Annexure 7 at page 44 to the writ petition and Annexure C.A.-5 at page 46 to the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 2, this Court found it expedient to call for original record from the Court below and passed following order on 19.2.2013: “After hearing counsel for the parties, there appears to be a serious dispute whether application dated 7.10.2012 was submitted in the Court and whether any order was actually passed by Special Judge, E.C. Act, Allahabad on 9.10.2012 or not. Let record of execution case No. 3 of 1995 in Civil Appeal No. 5598 of 2006 arising from original suit No. 15 of 1988 pending in the Court of Special Judge, E.C. Act, Allahabad, Peshkar Dairy, Nazir Register wherein entry of aforesaid application, if any, has been made, and register maintained by Nazir for cancellation of stamp be summoned within two days. Put up this matter on 22nd February, 2013.” 22. When the matter was taken up on 22.2.2013, this Court found that Court below record has not been received. Taking a serious view of the matter, particularly when the matter relates to a subordinate Court at Allahabad itself, another order was passed on 22.2.2013 seeking explanation from Court below and immediate compliance of order dated 19.2.2013. Pursuant thereto, alongwith explanation and report of District Judge Allahabad, the original record was produced on 26.2.2013 for perusal of this Court. 23. First, I take up the question, whether non compliance of this Court’s order dated 19.2.2013 on the part of Court below, was on account of exigency of circumstances or there appears to be something deliberate, intentional and lacking bona fide. 24. 23. First, I take up the question, whether non compliance of this Court’s order dated 19.2.2013 on the part of Court below, was on account of exigency of circumstances or there appears to be something deliberate, intentional and lacking bona fide. 24. It is admitted by Administrative Clerk, Imdad Safi in his explanation dated 22.2.2013 that order of this Court dated 19.2.2013 was conveyed through Fax received at 4.03 p.m. on 20.2.2013. The said fax massage was further transmitted to the concerned Court Clerk, Sri Naresh Kumar, vide entry in fax register, serial No. 235, dated 20.2.2013. It is said to have been received by concerned Court Clerk Sri Naresh Kumar at 4.21 p.m. on 20.2.2013. The further explanation of concerned Clerk, Naresh Kumar Srivastava, is that he handed over record for transmission to this Court to Nazarat Section at 12.50 p.m. on 22.2.2013 and it was returned to him by Assistant Nazir at about 3 P.M. on 22.2.2013. 25. Though well within working time of subordinate Court, order dated 19th February, 2013 was communicated and received on 20th February, 2013, this Court thus finds no valid justification for not producing record on 22nd February, 2013. Explanation in this regard is nothing but an eye wash, vague and actually gives no reason whatsoever. The concerned Court Clerk has not been able to tell why he allegedly handed over record only in the afternoon on 22nd February, 2013. Whether there was any reason other then bona fide, I would discuss after my observations from perusal of Court. 26. A perusal of original record shows some further interesting facts. Paper No. 43-C is an application dated 7.10.2012 received in the Court on 8.10.2012. The original application produced before the Court contains entry on the left side column said to that of Presiding Officer directing office to put up with file. The next paper number is 44-C, running in two pages, which is an application of petitioner-tenant, Harish Khurana, dated 10th October, 2012. On the left side column, there mentions the following words: “Filed by S.K.Srivastava, Adv.” 27. No date is mentioned. Then comes paper No. 45-C, an affidavit of Harish Khurana, petitioner-tenant sworn on 10th October, 2012. Oath Commissioner seal does not mention time at which affidavit was sworn. 28. Next is application, paper No. 46-C dated 9.10.2012 requesting that Tender for Rs. No date is mentioned. Then comes paper No. 45-C, an affidavit of Harish Khurana, petitioner-tenant sworn on 10th October, 2012. Oath Commissioner seal does not mention time at which affidavit was sworn. 28. Next is application, paper No. 46-C dated 9.10.2012 requesting that Tender for Rs. 8.5 lacs towards rent for the period of 1.4.2011 to 31.8.2012 be passed. On the left side column of this application also, following entry is there: “Filed by S.K.Srivastava, Adv. 9.10.2012" 29. I enquired from learned Senior Advocate Sri Jain as to how it could happen that an application dated 9.10.2012 filed on 9.10.2012 is marked paper No. 46-C while another but later application and affidavit dated 10.10.2012 could be marked as paper Nos. 44-C and 45-C. The documents filed later contain paper number earlier to the one which was filed one day before. No explanation could be forwarded by him on this aspect. 30. I also perused order sheet and found a detailed order dated 10.10.2012 passed by Court below on application, paper No. 44-C and affidavit 45-C dated 10.10.2012 and also on application no 43-C dated 7.10.2012. None of these applications shown to have been served upon counsel for the landlord-respondent in the Court below and order dated 10.10.2012 also does not show that the same was passed in presence of counsel for respondent-landlord. 31. The running order sheet at page 2A/20, at the bottom, contains following order: “9-10-2012 43x&vkosnu }kjk vf/koDrk foi{kh VsUMj ikl djus gsrq izLrqr gqvkAÞ 43C-Application through counsel for opposite party for passing Tender presented.” (English Translation by the Court) 32. The order earlier to 9.10.2012 is dated 21st July, 2012 fixing next date as 19.10.2012. Thereafter the aforesaid order is there but there is no signature or initial of Presiding Officer. The last word in order is scored out but there also I do not find any initial of Presiding Officer. The next order is on next page, which is dated 19.10.2012 and read as under: ^^iqdkjk x;kA vkt vf/koDrkx.k U;kf;d dk;Z ls fojr gSaA fnukad 22-10-12 dks vfxze vkns’k gsrq izLrqr gksA^^ “Called out. Today advocates are abtaining from work. Put up on 22.10.2012 for further orders.” (English Translation by the Court) 33. The order sheet contains another order dated 31.10.2012 and there also I find no initials of Presiding Officer. Today advocates are abtaining from work. Put up on 22.10.2012 for further orders.” (English Translation by the Court) 33. The order sheet contains another order dated 31.10.2012 and there also I find no initials of Presiding Officer. Two orders on separate sheets are appended after the running order sheet page 2A/20 but no running page number or paper number has been given by office of Court below. Looking to the aforesaid order sheet, I have reasonable doubt about maintenance thereof, particularly the order dated 9.10.2012, in regular course of functioning of the Court, and, it appears that said order has been incorporated/added in order sheet subsequently. 34. The Court Diary maintained under Rule 401 of General Rule (Civil), 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “GRC, 1957”), also contains no entry of the aforesaid matter in the list of cases of dated 10.10.2012. 35. I have also perused register of Court fees and process required to be maintained in Form No. 103 of GRC, 1957. It is paper back bound register, entries wherein have commenced from 2.1.2012. There is no paging in entire register. I directed the Court Reader to make pagination and the same has been done. In the entire register, on pages 47, 67, 71 and 96 initials of Presiding Officer of the Court, in token of its inspection, have been made, but on page 26, word “seen”, Special Judge, E.C. Act is mentioned, but there is no initial at all. This page, I have countersigned after encircling entry and has put in a remark “No initial of P.O.”. On pages 47, 67 and 96 dates 26.6.2012 20.9.2012 and 22.12.2012 respectively, is given but on page No. 71, only the word “seen” has been mentioned with initial without any date etc.. Pages 69 and 73 are blank. I could not discern any reason therefore. The entire register though is said to be about 14 months old but pages are absolutely fresh. To me it appears that the same has been prepared only when this Court passed order summoning original record alongwith Court fee register. 36. The manner and procedure for maintaining various kinds of register is provided in GRC, 1957. Various kinds of register other than process fee and Court fee required to be maintained in Civil Courts is provided in Rule 400, Chapter 14 of GRC, 1957. 36. The manner and procedure for maintaining various kinds of register is provided in GRC, 1957. Various kinds of register other than process fee and Court fee required to be maintained in Civil Courts is provided in Rule 400, Chapter 14 of GRC, 1957. The process fee and Court fee register, which is to be maintained, is provided in Rule 408, Chapter 14 of GRC, 1957. Rule 411 of GRC, 1957 contemplate that Court official appointed for the purpose by Presiding Officer of each Court shall daily enter particulars of the day’s case in the proper registers and, at least once a month in the first week, shall lay these registers before the Presiding Judge, who will inspect and sign his name and put the date under the entries of the previous month’s. 37. In the present case, admittedly, Presiding Officer has not complied with the requirement of Rule 411 of GRC, 1957. 38. Then I find one more thing. In Court fees and process fee register, on page 75, under entries for 9th October, 2012, only one application with Court fees of Rs. 2/- in Execution Case 3/1995 has been entered while as per original record, paper No. 43-C and 46-C, both contain Court fee stamp of Rs. 2 each. Paper No. 43-C is said to have been filed on 8th October, 2012 while it is alleged that Presiding Officer passed order on 9th October, 2012 while paper No. 46C is said to have been filed on 9th October, 2012. In the Court fee register, no application of execution case Nos. 3 of 1995 finds mention amongst cases entered on 8th October, 2012; and, on 9th October, 2012, it refers to only one Court fee of Rs. 2/- while on 10th October, 2012, it refers to Court fee of Rs. 2/- and Rs. 10/- i.e. on application and affidavit, which might have been paper Nos. 44C and 45C. One application, therefore, clearly do not find mention in the aforesaid register. 39. Then comes another aspect of the matter. Photo-stat certified copies produced before this Court in respect to paper No. 44C and 45C shows that Court fee stamps have not been cancelled thereupon though these certified photo-stat copies were prepared and issued on 17.11.2012. 44C and 45C. One application, therefore, clearly do not find mention in the aforesaid register. 39. Then comes another aspect of the matter. Photo-stat certified copies produced before this Court in respect to paper No. 44C and 45C shows that Court fee stamps have not been cancelled thereupon though these certified photo-stat copies were prepared and issued on 17.11.2012. Similarly, Court fees stamp on paper No. 46-C in the certified photo-stat copies made available to respondent No. 2 on 17.11.2012 also shows that Court fee stamp has not been cancelled. In the documents filed by petitioner certified copies whereof have been issued in February, 2013, Court fees stamps have been shown cancelled. In the original documents produced before this Court also Court fees stamps have been marked with red pen as “cancelled”. It is thus evident that these stamps must have been cancelled some times on and after 17.11.2012 otherwise there is no reason or occasion to issue photo-stat certified copies of these very documents without containing any cancelled Court fee stamps. 40. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not explain this discrepancy. It is thus evident that Court fee stamps had not been cancelled in the aforesaid documents till 17.11.2012 when photo-stat certified copies thereof were made available to the respondents and all the entries etc. have been done subsequently. 41. Complaint by respondent No. 2 that application and documents were actually not presented and filed on the date, they are alleged, appears to be correct. I have no hesitation in observing that even initials of Presiding Officer on paper No. 43C must have been made by Presiding Officer on and after 17.11.2012. 42. Antedating of documents particularly when it is likely to cause serious prejudice to one of the parties before Court of law, is a serious matter. I have no hesitation in observing that even initials of Presiding Officer on paper No. 43C must have been made by Presiding Officer on and after 17.11.2012. 42. Antedating of documents particularly when it is likely to cause serious prejudice to one of the parties before Court of law, is a serious matter. I find substance in what has been stated and complained by Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 that there is non compliance in respect to deposit of rent for the month of September, 2012 on the part of the petitioner-tenant and that is how he has defied Apex Court’s order dated 4.9.2012 but officials of Court below, in collusion with petitioner-tenant, have dared and endeavoured to manipulate record, even going to the extent of antedating the same, so as to show compliance, well in time, and short delay being on account of Court, in passing appropriate order later, as a result whereof rent for the month of September, 2012 could be deposited after 10th October, 2012. 43. Coming to the merits of the writ petition it cannot be disputed that monthly rent for September, 2012, which ought to have been deposited by petitioner by 10th September, 2012 was not deposited by due date and actually it was deposited only on 12th October, 2012. The Apex Court’s order dated 4.9.2012 clearly says that in case of default, judgment and orders dated 5.12.2005 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 328 of 1995 and Writ Petition No. 35774 of 1997 shall stand cancelled and orders passed by RCEO shall stand revived. 44. In view thereof, RCEO has not committed any error in issuing Form C dated 30.1.2013, impugned in this writ petition. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere therewith and writ petition deserve to be dismissed. 45. In my view, the petitioner, not only, has not approached this Court with clean hands, the conduct and action of Presiding Officer and officials in his Court also warrants serious condemnation. 46. A Court of law is worshipped by common people as a temple of justice. The Judges are given respect with the belief and confidence that they possess divine powers to impart justice. Forgery, manipulation, tampering etc. 46. A Court of law is worshipped by common people as a temple of justice. The Judges are given respect with the belief and confidence that they possess divine powers to impart justice. Forgery, manipulation, tampering etc. in the Court’s record and, that too, when it is not only in the knowledge of Presiding Officer of Court concerned but with his active participation, is something strange, unusual, unbelievable and shocking. The reason for not producing record on 22nd February, 2013 is evident and self-explained. In maintaining Court records, sometime, indeliberate omission, mistakes may occur but that would not cause any concern to this Court. It is only when things are distorted to the extent of antedating, manipulating and manufacturing documents, it becomes a very serious matter requiring immediate correction and preventive measures deterrent for the wrong doers. 47. Recently this Court in Writ Petition No. 25607 of 2012 (Smt. Ramawati v. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/A.D.J. and others) decided on 5.11.2012 held: 31. Before parting with this matter, I find myself duty bound to observe that whenever this Court finds in a case Judicial Officer of subordinate Court has not performed his duties honestly and faithfully, an action should be taken on administrative side so as to examine entire aspect in depth. A Judicial Officer, who has even a minutest attribute of lack of integrity etc., should be flushed out from the system to make it pure. The people have very high regard and deep confidence in the system of justice. This Court enjoy its strength upon people’s confidence. An onerous burden lie on this Court to maintain purity in the system so that this faith of the people should continue otherwise it will erode the very system gradually but persistently. 32. In the matter of lack of integrity etc., we are duty bound to observe zero tolerance policy without comparing with other wings of State where standards, scales and testing standards are different. Other wings may afford to have a little dilution in their approach but whenever it comes to test standards of judiciary, we have to abide a policy of no dilution, no compromise and no tolerance. The degree of tolerance cannot be measured or controlled, therefore, to have uniformity, it should be a policy of zero tolerance. Whenever the Court finds from record want of due integrity or fairness or impartiality etc. The degree of tolerance cannot be measured or controlled, therefore, to have uniformity, it should be a policy of zero tolerance. Whenever the Court finds from record want of due integrity or fairness or impartiality etc. on the part of a judicial official, in discharge of judicial function, the normal procedure should be that the matter should be referred on administrative side for further action and on administrative side, the Court must proceed to find out truth after holding such enquiry, as provided in law, and thereafter would be free to take appropriate decision. But despite judicial finding/observations, it would not be in the interest of system, if no action is taken whatsoever. Not only it will give a wrong massage to all but would set a bad precedent.” 48. I am of the view that conduct of officials including Presiding Officer of Court below should be subjected to further enquiry at departmental level as well as, if necessary, by initiating criminal proceedings. Connivance and indulgence of petitioner in these unholy activities cannot be ruled out since he is the person beneficiary of these things. In the circumstances, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with a direction to the District Judge, Allahabad to make further preliminary enquiry into the matter and submit report to this Court on administrative side. 49. Let this judgment be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for taking appropriate action against Presiding Officer of Court below. 50. So far as subordinate staff of Court below is concerned, District Judge being competent authority is directed to make appropriate enquiry and take action accordingly in accordance with law. 51. I may clarify at this stage that observations of this Court in context of conduct of officials of Court below including Presiding Officer are only for the purpose of deciding this writ petition but for further action, competent authorities may proceed with the matter independently without being influenced in any manner by findings and observations of this Court, recorded in this judgment. 52. Subject to the aforesaid direction/observations, this writ petition is dismissed with costs quantified to Rs. 5,000/- against petitioner payable to respondent No. 2. 53. Record of Court below shall forthwith be remitted to the concerned Court. ——————