R.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 16.3.2000 and 5.5.2000 contained in Annexure 2 and 1 respectively and quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 7/60 of 1998 under Section 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, for short, "the Act') initiated by the respondents No. 3, 5 and 6.
(2.) The facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the building in question was declared vacant by order dated 29.11.1999. Challenging the validity of the said order, a writ petition was filed in this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed on 15.12.1999 and on the request made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was granted six months' time to vacate the building in question. The operative portion of the order dated 15.12.1999 is quoted below:- "It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner will not be dispossessed from the accommodation in dispute for a period of six months from today provided he furnishes an undertaking by means of an affidavit before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Meerut, that the petitioner and his family members would vacate the premises on or before expiry of the said period of six months or the date of allotment order or release whichever is later and will hand over vacant and peaceful possession to the landlord or allottee, as the case may be." The order passed by the High Court, referred to above, has become final. It has been stated that the petitioner has not furnished the undertaking in writing. On the other hand, the petitioner made an application for review of the order passed on 29.11.1999. The review application was dismissed on 12.1.2000. The petitioner again moved another application on 19.1.2000 claiming the building in question was situated in the Cantonment area, therefore, the provisions of the Act had no application to it. The said application was also dismissed on 19.1.2000. Against the aforesaid order a revision was filed. The revision was also dismissed on 4.2.2000. Then, again a revision application is said to have been filed on 7.2.2000 which was also rejected on 24.2.2000. It was on 16.3.2000 the order of release was passed in favour of respondent No. 2. The petitioner preferred a revision against the said order which has also been dismissed on 5.5.2000. Hence, the present petition.
(3.) From the facts stated above, it is apparent that the petitioner failed to comply with the order passed by this Court dated 15.12.1999 to furnish the undertaking and to vacate the building within the time prescribed by this Court. The petitioner, thus, appears to be in contempt. However, at this stage, I do not intend to initiate any proceedings as learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that possession over the building in question had already been given to the landlord respondent. However, the conduct of the petitioner is deprecated. From the facts stated and material placed on the record, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.;