R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to decide the Execution Case No. 6 of 1987, Ram Prasad v. Ashok Kumar , pending before the said respondent expeditiously preferably within a period of seven days.
(3.) It appears that arising out of the proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, Writ Petitions No. 2725 and 3739 of 1987 were filed by the petitioner and respondent No. 2 in this Court. Writ petition filed by the landlord petitioner was dismissed on 2.2.1987. Writ petition of respondent No. 2 was decided by this Court after hearing the Counsel for the parties on 28.2.2000. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted below:- " Secondly, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is based on the apprehension that respondent No. 3 may not make any construction and he will be evicted and provided with a shop which will not be facing the road or market and thereby he will be deprived of a suitable shop for carrying on his business. The authorities below had considered this aspect. Respondent No. 3 was directed to construct the shop according to the sanctioned map within the period of one year. It was found that respondent No. 3 had got the map sanctioned and his financial status to construct the shop is good. He is dealing with the business of building materials. To avoid this apprehension, it would be appropriate that respondent No. 3 be directed to submit an undertaking on an affidavit before the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 2, that he would construct the shops within a period of one year from the date he gets possession of the disputed shop from the petitioner. Secondly, if respondent No. 3 fails to construct the shops within one year, as referred to above, the period of 10 years, as given by the Prescribed Authority, will be extended for a further time till the constructions are completed. Respondent No. 3 in his counter affidavit stated, in paragraph 4, that the shop behind Chetan - tenant has been constructed which he was required to give to the petitioner. The petitioner shall vacate the disputed shop and will take possession of the said shop within 2 weeks from the date of this order. In case the petitioner does not vacate, as directed above, it will be open for respondent No. 3 to get the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority executed. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is partly allowed as to the conditions mentioned in this order. The writ petition in other respondents is hereby dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.";