IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 935 of 2009 (Misc Application NO. 5154/2009) Jagdish Prasad ……….. Petitioner. Versus Anup Kumar and others. ………. Respondents ………………………… Sri Arvind Vashisth, learned counsel for the petitioner. Date June 25, 2009. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought direction to the District Judge, Dehradun to expedite and conclude the proceedings of Rent Control Appeal No. 42 of 2007, Anup Kumar and others versus Jagdish Prasad and another which was ordered to be consolidated and being heard with Rent Control Appeal No. 8 of 2009 Arun Kumar versus Jagdish Prasad and others within a period of three weeks or shortest possible time. 2. It is alleged by the petitioner that P.A. Case No. 38 of 2001 instituted by him under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for release of shops in question was allowed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dehradun on 17.03.2007. Against the said judgment and order dated 17.03.2007, the respondent Nos. 1 & 3 preferred a Rent Control Appeal before the District Judge which was numbered as R.C.A. No. 42 of 2007, Anup Kumar and another versus Jagdish Prasad and another. In the said appeal Arun Kumar was impleaded as respondent No. 2 Later on, Arun Kumar/ respondent No.2. filed another appeal against the same judgment and order dated 17.03.2007, which was numbered as R.C.A. No. 8 of 2009 with application for delay condonation. In order to avoid any further delay in the hearing of the earlier appeal No. 421 of 2007, the petitioner’s counsel agreed for condonation of delay. The learned District Judge has ordered for consolidation of both these appeals and fixed 05.02.2009 for hearing. Since then both these appeals are pending for disposal. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the appeal filed by the petitioner could not be decided till date due to delaying tactics adopted by the respondents. Due to delay in disposal of appeal, the petitioner is suffering hardship. 4. The prayer is innocuous, deserves to be accepted. The writ petition is disposed of finally directing the learned District Judge, Dehradun to expedite and conclude the proceedings of R.C.A. No. 42 of 2007, Anup Kumar and others versus Jagdish Prasad and another, which is being heard with R.C.A. No. 8 of 2009 and decide the same as far as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. (Misc. Application No. 5154/2009 also stands disposed of.) (B.S. Verma, J.) 25.06.2009 P. Singh