D.P.Singh,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner Company purchased the premises no.112/325 Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar which was an old and dilapidated construction and after getting it surveyed and finding that it was dangerous to let it stand, preferred an application under Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 which was registered as Rent Case no.23 of 2006. The respondent no.2 who is the tenant did not allow the application to proceed forcing the petitioner preferred Writ Petition no. 36526 of 2007 which was finally disposed off by the following order dated 8.8.2007 : "HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The case of the petitioner-company (owner-landlord) is that a Release application was filed before the Addl. Civil Judge (SD) Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur against the respondent tenant for demolition of the property in dispute. The application was registered as Rent Case no.23 of 2006, which is said to be still pending. The only prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a direction be issued to the court below to decide the aforesaid Rent Case No.23 of 2006 within a time bound framed fixed by this Court. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to this prayer. Since the petition is not being decided on merit, the Court does not deem necessary in the circumstances to call upon the respondent to file counter affidavit. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the court below to decide the aforesaid Rent Case no.23 of 2006 in accordance with law within four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs." A certified copy of the order was duly filed in the court below, but yet the tenant abused the process of Court, made one after the other large number of applications and did not allow the matter to proceed forcing the petitioner to approach this Court in Contempt jurisdiction wherein the following order was passed on 22.10.2008 : "HEARD learned counsel for the applicant. This application has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the directions so contained. In the order dated 08.08.2007 passed by the writ Court in Writ Petition No.36526 of 2007 to decide the Rent Case No.23 of 2006 in accordance with law within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. A perusal of the order sheet goes to show that certified copy of the order passed by the writ Court was served on 30th of August, 2007 by means of an application. A perusal of the order sheet further indicates that opposite party no.1 has granted unnecessary adjournments to the defendant-tenant, on account of which the order passed by the writ Court was not complied. In so far as opposite party no.2 is concerned, the case was transferred to his court on 19.09.2008 under the orders of the District Judge. In this view of the matter, no case for contempt can be said to be made out against opposite party no.2. However, he is directed to decide the proceedings strictly in accordance with the directions passed by the writ Court within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order below him. In so far as opposite party no.1 is concerned, though he is a judicial officer, but it appears that he has no respect for the orders passed by this Court. In this view of the matter, let notices be issued to opposite party no.1 within a week to show cause by filing counter affidavit which he should not be prosecuted for wilful disobedience of the order dated 08.08.2007 passed by the writ Court in Writ Petition no.36526 of 2007, returnable within six weeks. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the opposite party no.1 alongwith the notice." The aforesaid period has also expired, but yet the application still remains pending. A perusal of the order sheet shows that the respondent tenant has made atleast 35 applications on different dates to get the matter adjourned and each one of the applications have been dismissed. Review applications, recall applications and even the application under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act was made. All these applications have also been dismissed. It is also evident that 9.5.2008, 22.11.2008, 9.2.2009 and 16.2.2009 were dates fixed for leading of evidence by the respondent tenant, but yet for one or the other reason, he was able to get the case adjourned. It is also evident from the record that on the application moved by the respondent tenant, the matter has been heard atleast by three Prescribed Authorities, but they could not deliver the judgment as the respondent tenant made transfer applications. The arguments of the petitioner have been closed on 10th of April 2009, but it is pleaded that again an application has been moved on behalf of the tenant for framing a new issue. Though, normally a person is allowed to raise whatever objection he can under law, but this liberty cannot be used as a lever to indulge in the abuse of the process of Court and to thwart the legal proceeding. Therefore considering all the facts, specially the certified copy of the order sheet, this petition is finally disposed off with a direction to the court below to positively dispose off the release application of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order and in case any adjournment is sought on behalf of the respondent tenant except on the ground of death or grievous hurt, not to adjourn the case except after imposing heavy cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand) or more, but yet fixing a date not later than three days. No order as to costs.;