CLMA 7138/2008 In WPMS 1915/2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition the petitioner, who is respondent in Rent Control Appeal Nos. 94/2007, Sushil Kumar Chauhan Vs. Manmohan Kumar Nagalia, pending in the court of A.D.J. – II, Dehradun, has prayed for an early disposal of the appeal. Heard Sri B.P.S. Mer, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The record reveals that the petitioner moved an application U/S 21(1) (a) of Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Court of Prescribed Authority, Dehradun. The application of the petitioner was allowed vide judgment and order dated 4.8.2007. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed by Prescribed Authority, the respondents have preferred the appeals before the Court of District Judge, Dehradun, which were subsequently transferred to the court of A.D.J.-II, Dehradun. The appeal preferred by Sushil Kumar Chauhan was numbered as Rent Control Appeal No. 94/2007 and the appeal preferred by another respondent Vijendra Kumar Verma was numbered as Rent Control Appeal No. 95/2007. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of the pendency of the aforesaid appeals, the petitioner is not able to get the accommodation released in his favour, although the accommodation has already been released by the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority. The prayer made by the petitioner in the petition appears to be innocuous. I, therefore, direct the lower appellate court/A.D.J.-II, Dehradun to decide the Rent Control Appeal No. 94/2007, Sushil Kumar Vs. Manmohan Kumar as well as the Rent Control Appeal No. 95/2007 Vijendra Kumar Verma Vs. Manmohan Kumar, expeditiously and without causing any unreasonable delay. It is further made clear that the lower appellate court shall not grant any adjournment to either party on any unreasonable ground. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of finally. The CLMA also stands disposed of. ( B.C. Kandpal, J.) Dated:23-10-2008 ISB