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 mandamus commanding the respondent not to interfere in the possession living of the petitioner in the house in dispute and not to dispossess him and his family members from the house in question during the pendency of the suit No. 756 of 1986.
(2.) It appears that earlier, an order of release under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 was passed against the petitioner on 5.4.1995. Challenging the validity of the said order, an appeal was filed which was dismissed. Thereafter, petitioner filed writ petition No. 899 of 2000 which was also dismissed on 7.1.2000. However, on the request made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, six months time was granted by this Court to the petitioner to vacate the building in question. The operative portion of the judgment and order dated 7.1.2000 passed by this Court in the above noted writ petition is quoted below : This writ petition is directed against the order dated 5.4.1999 passed by the Prescribed Authority releasing the disputed accommodation in favour of the landlord-respondent and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 17.12.1999 affirming the said order in appeal. Briefly stated the facts are that the landlord-respondents filed application for release of the disputed accommodation under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the allegation that they require the disputed accommodation for residential purpose. It was stated that the accommodation with them is insufficient. The Prescribed Authority on consideration of the material evidence on record came to the conclusion that considering the accommodation with the landlord and their family members the accommodation is insufficient. The release application was allowed and that order has been affirmed in appeal. After having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order I do not find that the impugned order suffers from any manifest illegality. The writ petition is dismissed,. In the end learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed that some time may be granted to vacate the disputed accommodation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is granted six months time to vacate the disputed accommodation provided he gives written undertaking on affidavit before respondent No. 2 within two weeks from today that he would vacate the disputed accommodation within the time granted by this Court and will hand over its peaceful possession to the landlord-respondent.
(3.) The orders passed by the authorities below and of this Court referred to above have become final, they are binding upon him. the petitioner is also bound by the undertaking given by him. The relief prayed for by the petitioner in this petition, if granted, shall be in direct conflict of the earlier order passed by this Court which is legally not permissible. The writ petition as framed and filed is legally not maintainable.;