IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WPMS No. 2102 of 2010 Ram Prakash ……..Petitioner Versus Prescribed Authority and another …..Respondents. Present: Mr. Arvind Vashisht, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.2. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J(Oral) 1. Heard Sri Arvind Vashisht, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 2. Landlord i.e. respondent no. 2 had moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (From hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for release of the accommodation in his favour, which at the relevant was in occupation of the tenant, which is the present petitioner. This application was allowed ex parte by the Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 20.2.2008. Consequently, an appeal, under Section 22 of the Act against the order of release/eviction, was filed along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that since the District Judge is on leave, the matter is not being heard on Section 5 Application. Meanwhile, landlord has initiated execution proceedings at the appropriate Court. On these admitted facts, the matter is disposed of finally with the following direction: The District Judge in charge will either himself decide Section 5 application or allot the same to another appropriate court to be decided expeditiously. Till such decision is made, execution proceedings shall remain in abeyance. 4. Petition disposed of accordingly. 5. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J) 13.12.2010 Kuldeep