@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Rakesh Tiwari, J.@mdashHeard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction to Respondent No. 1, the Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut to
decide P.A. Case No. 40 of 2003 Girish Kumar v. Pawan Kumar Gupta and Anr. within a time bound frame fixed by this Court.
3. According to the Petitioner, from 14.12.2004 the dates for hearing of the case is being fixed but for some reasons or other the case is not being
decided, hence the instant writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.
4. If a party is frequently taking dates after dates to delay dispensation of justice there has to be a limit to such tactics adopted by a party. The
Courts are not expected to be a party to such tactics by readily giving adjournments in cases just for the asking. The J.S.C.C. suits are required to
be decided within six months as provided in the Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 and within three months by the Prescribed Authority appointed
under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972). Frequent dates
should not be given. The Courts have a responsibility to decide the case within the time which has been fixed by the legislation in its wisdom and
they have to strive to decide the cases in the time limit so fixed. If they do not do so, it sets a bad precedent opening the Pandora''s box for public
criticism. Delay erodes the faith of the public in justice system, hence care should be taken in this regard by the Courts.
5. This Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31642 of 2007 Smt. Manju Devi v. Additional District Judge, VIII Allahabad and Ors. 2007 (4)
AWC 3403 has held that the cases pertaining to Rent Control matters be decided within six months time frame provided in various sections and
rules under which applications are filed.
6. Rule 15(3) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 provides that release application may be decided
within a period of two months from the date of its presentation. It appears that the release application of the Petitioner is pending before the court
below for the last more than 7 years. In the circumstances, Respondent No. 1 is directed to follow the law strictly and decide the release
application within the time prescribed by law. The ratio laid down in the case of Manju Devi (supra) would also apply to the release application as
time limit has been prescribed for deciding the release applications.
7. In this view of the matter, the observations made by this Court in the case of Manju Devi (supra) may also be kept in mind by the courts below.
8. Without entering into the merits of the case and in view of the fact that P.A. Case No. 40 of 2003 Girish Kumar v. Pawan Kumar Gupta and
Anr., is pending before the court below for the last 7 years, the writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the court below to decide the
aforesaid P.A. Case No. 40 of 2003 within a period of 2 months as provided under Rule 15 (3) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting,
Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
No order as to costs.
