HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 701 of 2010 (M/S) Shri Gauri Shankar. ……..Petitioner Versus Shri Ved Prakash and others. .…….Respondents Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Advocates for the petitioner. Dated: June 30, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the Court of District Judge, Dehradun to decide the Rent Control Appeal No. 92 of 2008 titled as ‘Ved Prakash and others vs. Gauri Shankar’, pending before his Court, expeditiously preferably within two months. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner filed an application u/s 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the tenant/respondents before the Prescribed Authority, Dehrradun, which was registered as P.A. Case No. 73 of 2003. During pendency of said case, the tenant Shri Budhai Mal died leaving behind Shri Ramesh Kumar and Shri Jagdish Prasad, who were impleaded in the said P.A. case. Objections on behalf of the tenants were filed in the P.A. Case. Ultimately, the release application filed by the petitioner was allowed and the tenant-respondents were directed to vacate the shop in question. Aggrieved by the order of Prescribed Authority, the respondents preferred a Rent Control Appeal No. 92 of 2008 before the Court of District Judge, 2 Dehradun on 22.07.2008. It is stated in the petition that the appeal was listed before the District Judge about more than 20 occasions, but the same has yet not been decided as the respondents are deliberately delaying the disposal of the said appeal either on one pretext or the other. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred sub-rule (7) of Rule 7 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 which provides that “(7) As far as possible, a revision under Section 18 shall be decided within one month, an appeal or revision under Section 10 shall be decided within two months, and an appeal under Section 22 shall be decided within six months from the date of its presentation”. He submitted that the petitioner is aged about 70 years and is facing acute hardship, harassment and mental torture as he is unable to start a business of his family members in the shop in question as per his WILL in the fag-end of his life. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that in view of the above facts and circumstances, the Appellate Court may be directed to decide the aforesaid appeal as early as possible. 4. The prayer made by the petitioner appears to be genuine. From perusal of order sheet, I find that several times, the suit was adjourned due to one or the other pretext. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after considering every aspect of the matter, the learned District Judge, Dehradun is directed to decide the Rent Control Appeal No. 92 of 2008 titled as ‘Ved Prakash and others vs. Gauri Shankar’, pending before him expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months 3 from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 6. With the above direction, the writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs. 7. Misc. Application (CLMA No. 3480 of 2010) also stands disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) 30.06.2010 NCM: