Ravi Swaroop Dhavan, J. - (1.) THIS was a petition seeking resistance to an order of ejection after the proceedings between the tenant and the landlord had become terminal. Proceedings have come to a close when Laxman Prasad being no other than the son of the petitioner Shanti Devi filed a writ petition No. 6653 of 1990 Laxman Prasad v. 9th Additional District Judge, Allahabad challenging the orders in appeal of the 9th Additional District Judge, under the Act No. XIII of 1972 by which the release application of the landlord under Section 21(i)(a) had been allowed.
(2.) THE petition was dismissed on 16th August, 1990 by the High Court. The tenant took recourse to an ingenuity by hanging on to the accommodation and this time the ejection was resisted when the mother of Laxman Prasad filed a petition on 17th December, 1990 on technical grounds that she and her son were on inimical terms and in fact her husband was tenant, who had died and her son collusively had kept her out from the array of the parties in the earlier petition which had been filed.
(3.) THE court sent for the record of writ petition No. 6653 of 1990 and made it clear to the learned counsel for the petitioner that if what she had contended in her petition was correct then the accommodation which was supposed to be vacant continued to be occupied and this cannot happen and only the two presumptions would be that her son has violated the undertaking, for which this court will draw up proceedings of contempt against him, and she continues in the accommodation unauthorisedly. Responsibility for remaining to the accommodations or resisting petitioner will be upon her.;