S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) Against Bal Kishan, the tenant release application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by Mohan Lal, Radhey and Bhura sons of Phool Chand being P.A. Case No. 51 of 2000. Release application was allowed by Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No. 2, Mathura on 24.7.2001. Appeal filed against the same was also dismissed. Bal Kishan filed Writ Petition No. 6868 of 2003 which was dismissed by me on 3.2.2005. However, legal representatives of Bal Kishan who had been substituted at his place after his death in the said writ petition were granted one year's time on filing undertaking. One year's time expired on 3.2.2006. It is not clear as to whether legal representative of Bal Kishan the original tenant have vacated the premises or not. Chances are that still the said building has not been vacated.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed by Kailash Chand claiming to be owner-landlord of the premises in which Bal Kishan was tenant. According to the petitioner he has filed some suit (O.S. No. 81 of 2005) for declaration on the basis of Will alleged to have been executed by Smt Omwati on 5.7.2004 in his favour. According to the petitioner Phool Chand had executed a Will of the property in dispute in favour of Omwati who was his third wife.
(3.) The prayer in this writ petition is that earlier judgment and order dated 3.2.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 6868 of 2003 may be recalled and modified and for writ of mandamus directing respondent No 1 i.e., Prescribed Authority not to handover the property in dispute respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 Mohan Lal, Radhey and Bhura and for a direction to Civil Judge (SD), Mathura to decide Suit No. 81 of 2005 filed by the petitioner at the earliest I am fully convinced that this writ petition has in-fact been got filed by the tenant i.e., legal representatives of Bal Kishan. Even after grant of one year's time they have not vacated the premises in dispute. They have been shown to be respondents 5, 6 and 7 in this writ petition. Earlier judgment of the High Court cannot be challenged through another writ petition. As release application has beer: allowed in favour of Mohan Lal, Radhey and Bhura hence there is no question of directing that possession shall not be delivered to them.;