HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1113 of 2010 (M/S) Shri Sharat Sood. ……..Petitioner Versus hri Umesh Kumar. …….Respondent S Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for respondent. Dated: July 2, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the Presiding Officer of the Court of Addl. District Judge/F.T.C.-IV, Dehradun to decide the S.C.C. Case No. 2 of 2005, ‘Sharat Sood vs. Umesh Kumar’, expeditiously preferably within two months. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is owner of the property in question bearing Municipal No. 187/1, Rajpur Road, Dehradun and the ground floor of the said property (excluding first floor and stores) is under the tenancy of respondent since 20.11.2003. The respondent promised to vacate the said property after a period of 11 months otherwise to pay damages @ 500/- per day. It is stated that provisions of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the said property. The rent agreed between the parties is Rs. 5,800/- per month. It is asserted that the respondent paid only Rs. 6,000/- through a cheque dated 30.06.2004 and thereafter he paid nothing in lieu thereof, therefore notice was sent to the respondent but he did not respond, hence the SCC Suit no. 2 of 2005 was instituted by the petitioner 2 on 17.01.2005 before the Court of District Judge, Dehradun for eviction of respondent as well as recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profit. The said SCC case was lateron transferred to the Court of learned Addl. District Judge/F.T.C.-IV, Dehradun for hearing and disposal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case is pending since 17.01.2005 and the respondent is delaying the proceedings of the case either for one pretext or the other and enjoying the property in question without paying a single penny. The respondent filed his written statement on 10.04.2006 and thereafter allowed to proceed ex-parte against him. Although, lateron he moved application for recalling the ex-parte order, but the respondent is adopting tactics to delay the proceedings. It is contended that the petitioner is suffering unnecessarily. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that in view of the above facts and circumstances, the Court concerned may be directed to decide the aforesaid SCC Suit No. 2 of 2005 expeditiously. 5. Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate appearing for the respondent has stated that the proceedings of the case are not being delayed by the respondent and, in fact, on few dates the petitioner himself sought adjournments. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the case is pending since 2005, the learned Addl. District Judge/IV F.T.C., Dehradun is directed to decide the S.C.C. Suit No. 2 of 2005, ‘Sharat Sood vs. Umesh Kumar’, expeditiously. 3 7. With the above direction, the writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs. 8. Misc. application (CLMA No. 5232 of 2010) also stands disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) 02.07.2010 NCM: