Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Yashwant Varma, J. - (1.) The petitioner has sought to challenge an order dated 9 June 2015 passed by the first respondent in execution proceedings; a warrant of possession issued in Form-D of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 in the execution proceedings; and a mandamus not to evict him from the premises. The petitioner had filed writ proceedings before this Court (Writ - A No. 47670 of 2014) in which it was found that he had occupied the premises without any authority of law. The findings which were arrived at by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the earlier writ petition are as follows: "The contention of the petitioner that he is in possession of the disputed portion for the last 20 years or that his father Umrao Singh was in possession before Karan Singh was not accepted as he had his permanent address of the village and and there was no evidence to prove the date from which he had started living in the disputed house. The petitioner resisted the correction application or as a matter of fact the proceedings to put respondent no. 2 in possession of the disputed portion by claiming himself to be the owner in possession of the said four room portion as his ancestral house. There are no pleadings or any material which can even prima facie show that the aforesaid portion or as a matter of fact any part of the property ever belonged to the petitioners or his ancestors. The petitioner is completely silent about the manner and time in which he came in possession of the same. The petitioner has not even disclosed the date of the Will alleged to have been executed in his favour by late Kapoor Chand Jain. He has not even dared to mention the nature of the suit filed by him or the relief claimed therein. The stand of the petitioner regarding ownership of the said house is ex-facie doubtful. He himself is not sure about his rights. At one place he claims it to be his ancestral house and at other as one which has been bequeathed to him under the Will of the previous owner."
(2.) The learned Single Judge held that the petitioner was in unauthorized use and occupation of the premises. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge was challenged before the Supreme Court. The special leave petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 24 November 2014. A review petition has been dismissed on 3 February 2015. Since the order has not been executed, the second respondent has instituted contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court in which notice was issued by the Supreme Court on 26 September 2014 and a report was called for from the executing Court as to why the decree had not been executed till date.
(3.) The present proceedings have now been instituted on 21 June 2015 seeking the above mentioned reliefs with an additional challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The petitioner is not subjected to any prejudice whatsoever by the operation of Section 23 since he was admittedly heard both before the learned Single Judge and before the Supreme Court in the special leave petition and his submissions were negatived. These proceedings are a thorough abuse of the process of the Court and an attempt to somehow delay and postpone the execution of the decree. Therefore, we see no reason to entertain the petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed with costs quantified at rupees ten thousand.;