Article 136 challenge and eviction dispute treated as abusive process where occupants sought only to delay vacating premises.

An unconditional undertaking to vacate premises does not by itself bar a challenge under Article 136 when given as a condition for stay, but the surrounding conduct may show abuse of process. Here, the petitioners used repeated extension requests and a review petition to delay vacating, indicating acceptance of the eviction result rather than a bona fide challenge. The Court also noted that the concurrent finding that the premises were given on a conducting basis, and not as a tenancy, left no basis to disturb the eviction outcome. The litigation was treated as frivolous and abusive, warranting exemplary costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners could assail the High Court's order under Article 136 after having furnished an unconditional undertaking to vacate the premises, and whether the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process warranting dismissal with costs.

Analysis: The filing of an undertaking, by itself, does not foreclose the remedy under Article 136 when it is furnished as a condition for stay. On the facts, however, the undertaking was not given merely to preserve a challenge but to obtain time to vacate the premises, followed by further extension applications and a review petition. The sequence of conduct showed that the petitioners accepted the eviction outcome and sought only to prolong occupation. The merits also disclosed no basis to disturb the concurrent finding that the premises had been given on a conducting basis and that the petitioners could not claim tenancy rights. The Court treated the litigation as frivolous and abusive of the judicial process, justifying exemplary costs.

Conclusion: The petitioners' challenge was rejected, the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed, and the petitioners were saddled with directions to vacate, pay arrears, and pay costs.

---