IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 1952 OF 2010 Shri Ravinder Mishra ….....Petitioner. Versus Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (S.D.) Dehradun & another ….…Respondents. Present:- Sri Piyush Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) This is a matter where the petitioner and respondent no. 2 are tenant and landlord respectively. Respondent no. 2/landlord had filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Prescribed Authority, which is pending since 2004. It appears that on various occasions time was granted to the petitioner/tenant to submit the evidence in support of his contention, which was not done. Thereafter, an order was passed on 30.7.2010 by the Prescribed Authority giving the last opportunity to the tenant to submit his evidence with the costs of Rs. 500/- imposed on the respondent/tenant. The matter was fixed for 27.8.2010. On 27.8.2010, another application was moved by the petitioner/tenant for adjournment of the matter. The matter was again adjourned at the costs of Rs. 600/- and was fixed for 23.9.2010. On 23.9.2010 again an application was moved by the petitioner/tenant praying for taking the evidence on record, however, the said application was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 29.10.2010. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court. 2 Respondent no. 2/landlord, who is being represented by Sri Lokendra Dobhal states that the petitioner is trying to dilate the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority and inspite of repeated opportunities, he has not submitted the evidence and, therefore, no indulgence be granted to the petitioner. On the averments made in the writ petition and rival submission made by the learned counsels of the parties, this petition is being disposed of with the direction that since it is an old matter, the hearing of the matter be expedited without delay and without giving unnecessary adjournments to the parties. However, in the interest of justice, it is also directed that the evidence which was being submitted by the petitioner along with his application dated 23.9.2010, be taken as part of the record. It is further directed that no further adjournment will be given, unless and until it is required in the interest of justice and for which specific reasons must be assigned. The impugned order dated 29.10.2010 is, therefore, modified to that extent. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Let the copy of this order be issued to be parties today itself on payment of usual charges. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 22.11.2010 Avneet