Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the records. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

i) issue a writ of certiorari for quashing of order dated 15.09.2012 passed by District Judge, Barabanki in Rent Control Appeal No. Nil of 2012-Amarjeet Singh v. Bhupendra Singh. (Annexure No. 1).

ii) issue a writ of certiorari for quashing of order dated 21.09.2012 passed by District Judge, Barabanki in Misc. Application No. 93 of 2012 by which application for recall of aforesaid order dated 15.09.2012 has been rejected. (Annexure No. 2).

iii) issue a writ of certiorari for quashing of order dated 14.08.2012 passed by Additional Civil judge (Senior Division), Court No. 23, Barabanki in P.A. No. 6 of 2000-Bhupendra Singh v. Amar Jeet Singh by which petitioners applications bearing Nos. GA-103 and GA-102 has been rejected. (Annexure No. 3).

iv) issue a writ of certiorari for quashing of order dated 29.08.2012 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 23, Barabanki in P.A. No. 6 of 2000-Bhupendra Singh v. Amar Jeet Singh by which petitioners application bearing No. GA-108 has been rejected. (Annexure No. 4).

v) issue a writ of certiorari for quashing of order dated 14.09.2012 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 23, Barabanki in P.A. No. 6 of 2000-Bhupendra Singh vs. Amar Jeet Singh by which petitioners application bearing no. GA-115 has been rejected. (Annexure No. 5).

vi) issue any other writ, order or direction which the Honble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

vii) award costs of the petition to the petitioner against the opposite parties.

2. Brief factual matrix of the case are that the petitioner is the tenant in the disputed premises since the year 1980, of which opposite party No. 3 is the landlord. The landlord moved application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of disputed premises on 26.08.2000, in which the petitioner filed written statement on 05.12.2003, which was prepared and verified on 10.10.2003 but filed later on so as to steal time to keep his premises occupying. Under Rule 15(3) of the Rules framed under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, such application deserves to be decided, as for as possible, within two months. But, the petitioner/tenant has got success in keeping the disposal of the case pending for the last twelve years. He is moving applications after applications with an intent to delay the proceedings and, thereby, he is creating obstacles at every stage of trial and virtually attempting to prevent the learned Prescribed Authority from proceeding with the case. This case is a typical example of how an ordinary case moves in our courts. Cantankerous and unscrupulous litigant on one ground or the other, do not permit the Court to proceed further in the matter, which is demolishing the credibility of the entire judiciary, which is at stake.

3. The petitioner has made his intention clear by the recital in the writ petition itself that he is in occupation of the disputed shop as lessee without any allotment order for more than twenty years and that the landlord do not intimate the vacancy to Rent Control and Eviction Officer. It does not lie in the mouth of the tenant to occupy the premises on lease and then raise eyebrows on the conduct of the landlord just to keep the occupation continuing.

4. The order passed by the learned Prescribed Authority shows that the case is ripe for hearing of arguments and the petitioner has moved application 115-C under Order 11, Rule 1 of C.P.C., which was rejected on sound reasons. Then the petitioner moved application paper No-108-C that application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is barred by law and is not maintainable and is beyond jurisdiction of the Court, which was also rejected by the learned Prescribed Authority. An application paper No. 103-C was moved to the effect that he has moved an application under Order 11, Rule 11 of C.P.C. and under Order 6, Rule 7 of C.P.C. which have been rejected by the Court and he is preparing to file a writ petition, as transcribed by learned Prescribed Authority in his order, contained as Annexure No. 3, which shows that intention of the petitioner to surmount a pressure upon the learned Prescribed Authority not to proceed with the case in a judicial manner. The applications moved by the petitioner exhibits the absurdity in which he has alleged that he is an unauthorized occupant for more than twelve years and no suit for eviction can be filed against him. He has filed misc. case No. 93 of 2012 before the learned District Judge, Barabanki, which has been rejected on the ground that no appeal against an interlocutory order is maintainable before the learned District Judge. The order dated 15.09.2012 and 21.09.2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Barabanki are perfectly in accordance with law.

5. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the sanctity of affidavit filed by the landlord. It was argued that the application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 should have been rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. It was further argued that the impugned order passed by the learned Prescribed Authority fall under the heading of "case decided" and the appeal should have been heard by the learned District Judge. All the arguments placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner are neither tenable at law nor on facts.

6. The entire writ petition shows malicious intention of the tenant/petitioner. In Atmaram Properties v. Federal Motors, reported in : 2005(1) SCC 705, the Honble Apex Court has held as under:--

The landlord/tenant litigation constitutes a large chunk litigations between in the courts and tribunals. The litigation goes on for unreasonable length of time and the tenants in possession of the premises do not miss any opportunity of filing appeals or revisions so long as they can, thereby, afford to perpetuate the life or litigation and continued in occupation of the premises.

7. In Gayatri Devi and Ors. v. Shashi Pal Singh, reported in (: 2005 AIR SCW 2070 : AIR 2005 SC 2342 [LQ/SC/2005/327 ;] ">AIR 2005 SC 2342 [LQ/SC/2005/327 ;] [LQ/SC/2005/327 ;] ), the Honble Apex Court has, held as under:--

This appeal demonstrates how a determined and dishonest litigant can interminably drag on litigation to frustrate the results of a judicial determination in favour of the other side....

On 1.11.1987 the appellant committed perhaps the gravest blunder of her life of letting out the suit property to the respondent-tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 1300/-, which subsequently came to be increased to Rs. 1500/- w.e.f. 1.1.1990....

The history of this litigation shows nothing but cussedness and lack of bona fides on the part of the respondent. Apart from his tenacity and determination to prevent the appellants from enjoying the fruits of the decree, there appears to be nothing commendable in the case. Even before us the same arguments of fraud, and that the appellants were not legally owners of the suit property, were pleaded....

In our view, the conduct of the respondent deserves condemnation which we indicate by imposition of exemplary costs of Rs. 20,000/- on the respondent.

8. In Rajappa Hanamantha Ranoji v. Mahadev Channabasappa and Ors. Reported in : 2000 SCFBRC 321 : (AIR 2000 SC 2108 [LQ/SC/2000/950] ), the Honble Supreme Court also made the following observations:

It is distressing to note that many unscrupulous litigants in order to circumvent orders of Courts adopt dubious ways and take recourse to ingenious methods including filing of fraudulent litigation to defeat the orders of Courts. Such tendency deserves to be taken serious note of and curbed by passing appropriate orders and issuing necessary directions including imposing of exemplary costs. As noticed, despite eviction order having become final nearly a quarter century ago, respondent No. 1 still could not enjoy the benefit of the said order and get possession because of the filing of the present suit by the brother of the person who had suffered the eviction order. Under these circumstances, we quantify the costs payable by the appellant to respondent No. 1 at Rs. 25,000/-.

9. In T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and another, reported in : AIR 1977 SC 2421 [LQ/SC/1977/296] , the Honble Supreme Court has held:

The sharp practice or legal legerdemain of the petitioner, who is the son of the 2nd respondent, stultifies the court process and makes decree with judicial seals brutum fulmen. The long arm of the law must throttle such litigative caricatures if the confidence and credibility of the community in the judicature is to survive.

10. Later on in Rajappa Hanamantha Ranoji v. Mahadev Channabasappa and Ors, : 2000 SCFBRC 321: (AIR 2000 SC 2108 [LQ/SC/2000/950] ), reported in the Honble Supreme Court has held as under

It is distressing to note that many unscrupulous litigants, in order to circumvent orders of the courts adopt dubious ways and take recourse to ingenious methods including filing of fraudulent litigation to defeat the orders of the courts. Such tendency deserves to be taken serious note of and curbed by passing appropriate orders and issuing necessary directions including imposing or exemplary costs.

11. In Ravinder Kaur v. Ashok Kumar and Anr., reported in : AIR 2003 SCW 7158 : (: AIR 2004 SC 904), the Honble Supreme Court has held as under:

Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment-debtors to deny the decree-holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. These type of errors on the part of the judicial forums only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing laws delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system.

12. In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and others, reported in : (2010) 2 SCC 114 [LQ/SC/2009/2098] : (AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 116), the Honble Supreme Court has held as under:--

In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court will always keep in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, then the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter on merits. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.

13. The Honble Supreme Court in the above said case has further held as under:--

In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others : (2008) 12 SCC 481 [LQ/SC/2008/1382] : (AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1309), the court held that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. The same rule was reiterated in G. Jayshree and others v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and others : (2009) 3 SCC 141 [LQ/SC/2008/2562] : (AIR 2009 SC 1749 [LQ/SC/2008/2562] ).

14. This is the experience of this Court that in last 40 years, a new breed of litigants has cropped up. Those, who belong to this breed, do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new generation of litigants, the Courts have, from time to time evolved new rules and, it is now well established that the litigants, who attempt to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, are not entitled to any relief, interim or otherwise. I find force while holding this, by the law laid down in Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. : (2010) 2 SCC 114 [LQ/SC/2009/2098] : (AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 116) by Honble Supreme Court. On the basis of discussions made above and in view of the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court as mentioned hereinabove the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 25,000/- which shall be deposited by the tenant/petitioner before the learned Prescribed Authority within two months, failing which the learned Prescribed Authority shall get it recovered as arrears of land revenue.