The court emphasized that misleading the court through concealment of facts justifies the dismissal of petitions and imposition of enhanced costs.

1. Leave granted.

2. Arising out of dismissal of the Writ Petition - C No. 63564 of 2015 by the High Court with a cost of Rs.20,000/-, this appeal has been filed by the appellant.

3. On perusal of the order it reveals, the suit seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide need was filed by appellant which was decreed by the prescribed authority under the Rent Act. On filing the rent appeal by tenant, it was allowed for the reason that in a suit based on bona fide need, ownership has not been proved by the landlord. Assailing the said order, Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition (Civil) No. 42095 of 2001 was filed by the landlord. The High Court while entertaining the writ petition passed an interim order on 22/09/2006. The said order is relevant therefore, reproduced as thus:
"Having pragmatic approach, considering the facts and circumstance of the case and location / area etc. of the accommodation in dispute, it would be appropriate that the rent of the disputed accommodation now be increased to Rs. 2000/- per month from September, 2006. It is accordingly directed that the tenant shall pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month towards rent to the landlady. The rent of September 2006 shall be paid by 7th of October, 2006 and thereafter by 7th day of each succeeding month till further orders. In case of default in payment of the current rent as directed by this Court the landlord can get the disputed accommodation vacated with the help of police within a period of one month by giving notice in writing."

4. Bare perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that the Court directed to pay Rs. 2000/- per month as enhanced rent from September 2006. It was also observed that in case of default in payment of enhanced current rent, the landlord can get the possession of the suit premises with the help of police after serving notice of one month. The appellant alleges that the enhanced rent had not been paid. It is also a fact that the said writ petition was finally dismissed on 05/12/2012. The order of the dismissal of writ petition is relevant, therefore, reproduced for ready reference as thus:
"5. Learned counsel for petitioner could not show that findings of fact recorded by Appellate Court are perverse or contrary to material on record. In absence of anything to demonstrate perversity in the findings recorded by the Appellate Court, I find no reason to interfere. The scope of judicial review under Art.227 is very limited and narrow as discussed in detail by this Court in Writ A No. 11365 of 1998 (Jalil Ahmad Vs. 16th Addl. Distt. Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others) decided on 03/07/2012. There is nothing which may justify judicial review of order impugned in this writ petition in the light of exposition of law, as discussed in the above judgment.
6. In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere.
7. Dismissed.
8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated."

5. As per the said order, while dismissing the writ petition filed against the judgment passed in rent appeal, dismissing the suit of eviction, the Court observed that the order of the appellate authority did not reflect any perversity, therefore in a limited scope of judicial review under Art.227 of the Constitution of India refrained to interfere in the order of rent appeal and vacated the interim order also.

6. As per the interim order dated 22/09/2006 and till dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant could not get the possession, therefore, she filed Writ Petition No. 64567 of 2013 which was disposed of by order dated 26/11/2013. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under:
"Consequently, in the facts of the case, SSP / DIG of Kanpur Nagar, is directed to look into