JUDGMENT Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri Nitinjay Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed praying for the following relief: “i. issue a writ, order or direction to set aside the impugned order dated 10.11.2017 (Annexure 6 to the petition) passed by Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut/Executing Court in Misc. Case No. 158/2017(Rashid and others v. Premvihari and others) and impugned order dated 1.2.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Meerut in Civil Appeal No. 184/2017 (Rashid v. Premvihari) with all of its consequential effects whatsoever (Annexure 10 to the petition). ii. issue a writ, order or direction to the Respondent No. 1 not to evict/dispossess the petitioner from Stairs, stage, Platform, Store room of Bhawan Sankhya 132, Valley Bazaar, City Meerut which are in possession and occupation of the petitioner and their predecessors from last about 70 years without following the due procedure of law. iii. issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case. iv. Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner”. 3. By the impugned order dated 10.11.2017, the application of the petitioner’s herein under Order 21 Rule 97 and 99 read with Section 151 C.P.C. being Misc. Case No. 158 of 2017, was rejected. The Civil Appeal No. 184 of 2017 (Rashid and others v. Prem Behari Lal Agrawal and others) filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 1.2.2018. FACTS 4. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the disputed house bearing Municipal No. 132, Valley Bazar, Meerut, was originally owned by one Sri Brij Nandan Lal. After his death it was inherited by his son Prem Behari Lal Goyal, who filed P.A. Case No. 54 of 1999 (Prem Vihari v. Abdul Rehman), under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 for release of the accommodation in occupation of the tenant Sri Abdul Rehman. The tenant Abdul Rehman filed a written statement in which he took a specific stand that the accommodation under tenancy is the shop at the first floor alongwith Chabutra and two and half feet wide stairs. The aforesaid P.A. Case was decreed by judgment dated 29.10.2002 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut. 5. The tenant Abdul Rehman filed a written statement in which he took a specific stand that the accommodation under tenancy is the shop at the first floor alongwith Chabutra and two and half feet wide stairs. The aforesaid P.A. Case was decreed by judgment dated 29.10.2002 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut. 5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, the tenant Abdul Rehman filed Misc. Appeal No. 326 of 2002 (Abdul Rehman v. Prem Behari), which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge Court No. 1, Meerut by judgment dated 12.3.2004. Thereafter, the defendant-tenant Abdul Rahman challenged the judgment dated 12.3.2004 in Writ-A No. 19672 of 2004 (Abdul Rahman v. Prem Behari Lal Goel), which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 30.4.2014. 6. Thereafter, in execution Case No. 17 of 2004 filed by the plaintiff-landlord/decree holder, the petitioner herein, Sri Rashid along his brother Sakir and one Sri Saleem Ahmad son of Abdul Rahman filed a Misc. Application dated 21.9.2017 under Order 21 Rule 97 and 99 read with Section 151 C.P.C. being Case No. 158 of 2017. In paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the application, they stated that their ancestor Abdul Raheem had expressed desire to the landlord to take on rent a room on the first floor for starting tailoring shop by his sons Abdul Rahman and Jameel, but rent receipt was issued by the landlord in the name of Abdul Rahman. It was further stated that the applicant No. 3 is the son and applicant No. 1 and 2 are the grand sons of Abdul Raheem. Thus, the tenant Abdul Rahman and the applicants namely, Rashid, Sakir and Saleem Ahmad are the family members. 7. The aforesaid application being Misc. Case No. 158 of 2017 was rejected by the Judge Small Cause Court, Meerut by order dated 10.11.2017. The petitioner alongwith the aforesaid two other applicants preferred a Civil Appeal No. 184 of 2017, which was dismissed by order dated 1.2.2018. Aggrieved with these two orders, one of the applicants, namely, Rashid has filed the present petition. The other applicants, namely Sakir and Saleem Ahmad have not challenged the impugned judgments/orders. SUBMISSIONS 8. The petitioner alongwith the aforesaid two other applicants preferred a Civil Appeal No. 184 of 2017, which was dismissed by order dated 1.2.2018. Aggrieved with these two orders, one of the applicants, namely, Rashid has filed the present petition. The other applicants, namely Sakir and Saleem Ahmad have not challenged the impugned judgments/orders. SUBMISSIONS 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the P.A. Case No. 54 of 1999 (Prem Vihari Lal Goyal v. Abdul Rehman) was not decreed in respect of the space of stairs the space below the stairs and the Chabutra which are being utilized by the petitioner herein. Therefore, his possession cannot be interfered with in Execution Case No. 17 of 2004. He submits that the decree was not with respect to the disputed accommodation. Therefore, even if the petitioners herein are the trespassers, they cannot be dispossessed except following due procedure of law. They cannot be dispossessed in execution of decree passed in the aforesaid P.A. Case No. 54 of 1999. 9. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of in Shreenath and another v. Rajesh and others, 1998(2) AWC 1403 (SC) (Paragraph Nos. 9 & 10) and a judgment of this Court in Hari Lal Yadav v. Ghanshyam Shukla and another, 2006(1) ARC 198 (Paragraph Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8). DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS 10. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the petition. 11. Sri Abdul Raheem had taken the disputed accommodation alongwith one room on the first floor on rent from the plaintiff-landlord for starting tailoring shop by his sons Abdul Rahman and Jameel. The rent receipts were issued in the name of the son Abdul Rahman. 12. The landlord/respondent No. 1 had filed a P.A. Case No. 54 of 1999 (Prem Behari Lal Goel v. Abdul Rahman), under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 for release of the tenanted accommodation. The tenant Abdul Rahman filed a written statement. The rent receipts were issued in the name of the son Abdul Rahman. 12. The landlord/respondent No. 1 had filed a P.A. Case No. 54 of 1999 (Prem Behari Lal Goel v. Abdul Rahman), under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 for release of the tenanted accommodation. The tenant Abdul Rahman filed a written statement. While, deciding the aforesaid P.A. Case by judgment dated 29.10.2002, the Court below noted the contents of the written statement of the tenant Abdul Rahman with respect to the tenanted accommodation as under : ^^iz'uxr lEifRr dk nqdku dk izFke ry ij fLFkr gksuk vLohdkj ugha gS ysfdu izFke ry dh nqdku ds lkFk uhps dk pcwrjk o izFke eafty ij tkus dk thuk Hkh iz'uxr nqdku dh fdjk;snkjh esa 'kkfey gSA izFke eafty es nks dejs Hkh izkFkhZ us xyr crk;s gSa izFke eafty esa ,d cM+h nqdku o nks dejs] ckgj dk ckjtk Hkh izFke eafty esa foi{kh dh fdjk;snkjh esa gS^^A 13. The aforesaid P.A. Case No. 54 of 1999 was decreed by judgment dated 29.10.2002, which was challenged by the tenant Abdul Rahman in Misc. Appeal No. 326 of 2002. The appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 12.3.2004. The tenant challenged the judgment of the appellate Court in Writ-A No. 19672 of 2004, which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 30.4.2014. Thereafter, the application being Misc. Case No. 158 of 2017 (Rashid and others v. Prem Behari and others) was filed by Sri Rashid, Sakir and Saleem Ahmad, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 10.11.2017. The applicants Rashid and Sakir are the grand sons, while Saleem Ahmad is the son of the aforesaid Abdul Raheem. Thus, all the three applicants namely Rashid, Sakir and Saleem Ahmad are the family members of the tenant. 14. From perusal of the facts noted in the impugned order dated 10.11.2017 passed by Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut/Executing Court in Misc. Thus, all the three applicants namely Rashid, Sakir and Saleem Ahmad are the family members of the tenant. 14. From perusal of the facts noted in the impugned order dated 10.11.2017 passed by Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut/Executing Court in Misc. Case No. 158 of 2017 (Rashid and others v. Prem Behari and others) and impugned order dated 1.2.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge (Court No. 9), Meerut in Civil Appeal No. 184 of 2017 (Rashid v. Prem Behari) it is evident that after the tenant lost up to this Court in Writ-A No. 19672 of 2004 (Abdul Rahman v. Prem Behari Lal Goel) decided on 30.4.2014, the other family members were set up to litigate further by moving application being Misc. Case No. 158 of 2017 after 16 years of the judgment of the trial Court, to raise objection in execution proceedings pending from about 14 years that the stairs and Chabutra are in their permissive possession, so that the access to the released tenanted accommodation, may be fully obstructed and the decree itself may become unexecutable. These facts leave no manner of doubt that after the judgment of the trial Court has attained finality long ago, the tenant in collusion with his family members grossly abused the process of Court to delay the execution of the decree. The statutory mandate contained in Rule 15(3) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules,1972 for expeditious disposal of rent cases has been frustrated. 15. In the case of Bool Chand (dead) through legal representatives and others v. Rabia and others, (2016) 14 SCC 270 (Paragraph-12), Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioned against frivolous objections in execution cases and observed as under: “While a genuine petition for execution of a decree can certainly be considered, the Court cannot be oblivious of frivolous objections being filed after a decree is passed in long-drawn contested proceedings. Attempt to deprive the decree-holder of benefit of such decree should be discouraged by the Court where such objection is raised. The impugned order is thus, clearly erroneous and unsustainable and not a result of sound judicial approach”. (Emphasis supplied by me) 16. In the case of Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and another v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar and others, (2017) 5 SCC 496 (Paragraph Nos. 14 and 15), Hon’ble Supreme Court issued a general mandamus to deal with frivolous petitions, observing as under : “14. (Emphasis supplied by me) 16. In the case of Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and another v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar and others, (2017) 5 SCC 496 (Paragraph Nos. 14 and 15), Hon’ble Supreme Court issued a general mandamus to deal with frivolous petitions, observing as under : “14. Courts across the legal system - this Court not being an exception - are choked with litigation. Frivolous and groundless filings constitute a serious menace to the administration of justice. They consume time and clog the infrastructure. Productive resources which should be deployed in the handling of genuine causes are dissipated in attending to cases filed only to benefit from delay, by prolonging dead issues and pursuing worthless causes. No litigant can have a vested interest in delay. Unfortunately, as the present case exemplifies, the process of dispensing justice is misused by the unscrupulous to the detriment of the legitimate. The present case is an illustration of how a simple issue has occupied the time of the Courts and of how successive applications have been filed to prolong the inevitable. The person in whose favour the balance of justice lies has in the process been left in the lurch by repeated attempts to revive a stale issue. This tendency can be curbed only if Courts across the system adopt an institutional approach which penalizes such behavior. Liberal access to justice does not mean access to chaos and indiscipline. A strong message must be conveyed that Courts of justice will not be allowed to be disrupted by litigative strategies designed to profit from the delays of the law. Unless remedial action is taken by all Courts here and now our society will breed a legal culture based on evasion instead of abidance. It is the duty of every Court to firmly deal with such situations. The imposition of exemplary costs is a necessary instrument which has to be deployed to weed out, as well as to prevent the filing of frivolous cases. It is only then that the Courts can set apart time to resolve genuine causes and answer the concerns of those who are in need of justice. Imposition of real time costs is also necessary to ensure that access to Courts is available to citizens with genuine grievances. Otherwise, the doors would be shut to legitimate causes simply by the weight of undeserving cases which flood the system. Imposition of real time costs is also necessary to ensure that access to Courts is available to citizens with genuine grievances. Otherwise, the doors would be shut to legitimate causes simply by the weight of undeserving cases which flood the system. Such a situation cannot be allowed to come to pass. Hence it is not merely a matter of discretion but a duty and obligation cast upon all Courts to ensure that the legal system is not exploited by those who use the forms of the law to defeat or delay justice. We commend all Courts to deal with frivolous filings in the same manner. 15. We accordingly dismiss the Special Leave Petitions but while doing so, direct that: (i) the petitioners shall vacate the premises on or before 7 March 2017; (ii) In case the petitioners fail to vacate the premises by the date indicated in (i) above, they shall expose themselves to civil and criminal consequences under the law; (iii) the petitioners shall pay all arrears for use of the premises computed at the rate fixed in the order of this Court dated 28 August 2015 within four weeks; and (iv) the petitioners shall pay costs quantified at Rs 5 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs) to the respondents within two months”. 17. In the case of Bool Chand (dead) through legal representatives and others (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court mandated that the Court cannot be oblivious of frivolous objections being filed after a decree is passed in long-drawn contested proceedings. The attempt to deprive the decree-holder of benefit of such decree should be discouraged by the Court where such objection is raised. 18. The present petition is evidently a frivolous petition. About 16 years have passed from the judgment of the trial Court, which attained finality but the landlord could not get possession of the tenanted accommodation and instead has been dragged mala fidely in litigation by the tenant and his family members. 19. No litigant can have a vested interest in delay. The present case exemplifies, the process of dispensing justice has been misused by the unscrupulous to the detriment of the legitimate. The present case illustrates that how a simple issue has occupied the time of the Courts and how applications have been filed to prolong the execution of decree. 19. No litigant can have a vested interest in delay. The present case exemplifies, the process of dispensing justice has been misused by the unscrupulous to the detriment of the legitimate. The present case illustrates that how a simple issue has occupied the time of the Courts and how applications have been filed to prolong the execution of decree. The person in whose favour the balance of justice lies has, in the process, been left in the lurch by moving frivolous applications/objections in execution proceedings. This tendency can be curbed by imposition of costs in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and another (supra). Process of law has been grossly abused by the petitioner. Therefore, exemplary costs deserves to be imposed. 20. The judgments relied by the petitioners are distinguishable on facts of the case. 21. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any manifest error of law in the impugned orders. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-. The cost shall be deposited by the petitioner in the Court below within eight weeks from today and thereupon, the plaintiff-landlord/decree holder shall be entitled to withdraw it.