- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. The perusal of the order sheet in this case, copy annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, shows that tenant managed to put in appearance for about 1-0 months. See order-sheet of 31-1-1998 to 15-7-1998. Respondent was absent or otherwise filed application for adjournment at least on about 15 occasions (including dates when respondent absent without filing applications for ad journment); see order-sheet from 9-9-1998 to 15-10-1998, 2-11-1998, 5-1-1999, 17-5-1999, 29-7-1999, 18-10- 1999/20-10-1999,27- 11-1999,16-12,1999,1-3-2000,5-5-2000,23- 5-2000,12-7-2000,20-12-2000 and 11-1-2001. Apart from it, case could not be heard because of the Advocates strike on 15/17-1- 2000 and24-3-2000. The case could not be taken up because Presid ing Officer was on leave on 22-12-1999 and 20-12-2000. The order- sheet of the case clearly indicates that tenant applied for and got adjournments or otherwise ab sented. It clearly reflects that tenant is adopting delaying' tactics. Court below ought to have shown its concern and at tempted to decide the case early by not granting adjournments lightly. The Court below, though not endeavoring and without being alive to its consequence en couraged the concerned party to get the case delayed by seeking adjournments on ipsidixi.
(2.) 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. " Rules 15 (1) and (3), framed under Section21 (1) (a) 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 the 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. 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 jus tice. . . . . . . . . Let 1999 be an "year OF AC TION" towards disposal of old cases. " He advised old cases to be decided on day to day basis.
(3.) 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, there is a need to evolve a system which may ensure timely disposal of their matters pending in the Court. . . . . . . " Adjournments in the present 'judicial delivery system' are like fire. If we sit with our back towards it, then for sure, in future we shall be sitting on our blisters.- Bible says : "do not let evil conquer you. But overcomeevil with good. ";