A petitioner cannot file a fresh writ petition in respect of the same cause of action if the earlier petition was dismissed without permission to institute a fresh petition. Filing a second petition without bringing the dismissal of the first petition to the notice of the court amounts to an abuse of the process of the court.

S.D.Agarwala, J.

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of the proceedings under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.

2. The property in dispute is premises No. 101/114, Talaq Mohal, Kanpur. Ishtiyaq Ahmad respondent no. 1 is the tenant. The petitioners are the landlords. The petitioners moved an application for release under Section 21 of the Act on the ground of personal need. The Prescribed Authority by an order dated 30th September, 1981 allowed the release application in part and directed the tenant to handover the vacant possession of one room adjacent to the portion in possession of the landlord alongwith a verandah in front of that room to the landlords within a month.

Aggrieved by this decision dated 30th September, 1981, two appeals were filed before the District Judge under Section 22 of the Act. Rent Appeal No. 325 of 1981 was filed by the landlords and Rent Appeal No. 327 of 1981 was filed by the tenants. Both these appeals were heard by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Kanpur. The tenants' appeal was allowed and the landlords' appeal was dismissed. The release application of the landlords was dismissed as whole. This judgment in appeal was passed on 8-3-1982.

3. The petitioners filed this petition challenging the order dated 8-3-82 as well as the order passed on 30-9-81 by means of the present petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the' tenant-respondents Sri M. A. Qadeer has raised a preliminary objection that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioners had filed an earlier petition against the same judgment which was dismissed by this Court on 21-7-82. No permission was sought by the petitioners for filing a fresh petition.

I have heard Sri P. N. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners on this preliminary objection and I also sent for the record of writ petition No. 4226 of 1982 which was earlier filed by the petitioners and which was dismissed by this Court on 21-7-82.

5. On a perusal of the record of this petition and the record of writ petition No. 4226 of 1982, the facts which emerge are as follows : This writ petition is carbon copy of writ petition No. 4226 of 1982, hereinafter referred to as the first petition. The affidavit in support of this petition as well as the first petition was sworn at the same date at Kanpur on 20-3-82. The first petition was got reported in this Court on 30-3-82. It was filed before Hon'ble M. P. Mehrotra, J. on 27-4-82 and the following order was passed by Hon'ble M. P. Mehrotra, J.

"Put up as unlisted part heard tomorrow." ON 28-4-82 the following order was passed on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner :- "ON the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner this petition is directed to be listed for admission as a part heard one on 3-5-82." Thereafter, this petition was listed on many dates before Hon'ble M. P. Mehrotra, J. and it was passed over on one or the other reasons. Ultimately the matter came up before Hon'ble M. P. Mehrotra, J. on 21-7-82. No body appeared before him to press the petition and accordingly the petition was dismissed in default. The following order was passed by Hon'ble M. P. Mehrotra, J. "No one appears to press this petition, it is accordingly dismissed in default."

This petition (second petition) which was a carbon copy of the first petition was got reported on 5-7-82 and filed in this Court before Hon'ble Banerji, J. on the same day. He directed to be listed this petition after two weeks. This second petition came up for admission before Hon'ble B. D. Agarwal, J. on 18-1-83 and on that date the petition was admitted and notice was issued.

6. From the above facts it is, therefore, clear that both the petitions were filed against the same order. The first petition was dismissed on 21-7-82 after being kept as part heard for a num