- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. This is a landlord peti tion praying to this Court for issuing a writ of mandamus directing opposite No. I/prescribed Authority for quick disposal of the release application (release case No. 129 of 1999) filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972) (for short called 'the Act' ). Petitioner who is owner of the House No. 111/428, Ashok Nagar, Kanpur and is landlord vis-a-vis his tenant Sardar Harbhjan Singh, Respondent No. 2 who occupies a portion of the said house described in the release application. The release application has been filed on the ground that he was aged about 65 years and resides along with his wife aged about 62 years on the first floor of the said house. The landlord claimed to be the Consultant Civil Engineer and submitted it was very inconvenient and caused by physical hardship in climbing stairs for meeting his client (para 4 of the release application, Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition ).
(2.) PETITIONER has annexed photocopy of order sheet of the case Perusal of the order sheet indicates that proceedings are being taken leisurely. It is natural that tenant, who is sought to be vacated will not be keen to have the proceedings go swiftly and it is natural tendency to ensure delay in the disposal of the case. This Court is conscious of the fact that the Lower Courts are lawfully occupied and working under great stress. The factors are many folds but this does not justify grant of adjournments lightly and even of the drop of hat. Rule 7 (7), framed under Sections 10,18 and 22 of the Act, read: "as far as possible, a revision under Sec tion 18 shall be decided within one month, an appeal or revision under Section 10 shall be decided within two months, and an appeal under Section 22 shall be decided within six months from the date of its presentation. " Rule 15 (1) (3), framed under Sec tion 21 (1) of the Act read :- (1) Every application referred to in sub-rule (1) shall, as far as possible, be decided within two months from the date of its presenta tion. Disposal of release application filed by landlord, it is statutory obligation of the Court. (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) Every application referred to in sub-rule (1) shall, as far as possible, be decided within two months from the date of its presenta tion.
(3.) HON'ble Dr. A. S. Anand, Chief Jus tice of India, in his letter dated December 22,1998 addressed to all the Chief Justices of the High Courts, referred to 'laws delay' and noted "we should take every possible step for early disposal of old cases so that the agony of the litigants is brought to an end. . . . . . . . . . conveying unequivocally to the parties that such old matters cannot be allowed to remain pending indefinitely and bring disrepute to the Courts. No party to the litigation can be permitted have any vested right in slow motion justice. . . . . . . Let 1999 be an "year OF ACTION" towards disposal of old cases. " He advised old cases to be decided on day to day basis. In another letter dated April 22 of 1999, the Chief Justice of India with refer ence to "international Year of Older Per sons" noted "in India, there is high in cidence of litigation concerning property and inheritance, two of the most common issues in which elderly persons are generally involved apart from landlord-tenant disputes. Besides property and in heritance matters, service matters, such as pension and retiral benefits also concern older people. . . . . . . " "the problem gets compounded by the inordinate delay in disposing of the matters of older persons in the Courts and in many matters the litigants unfortunately dies even before the case is finally settled. You will appreciate that the elderly people deserve to be attended by the legal system of the country somewhat on priority basis. Therefore, these is a need to evolve a system which may ensure timely disposal of their matters pending in the Court. . . . . ";