Ran Vijai Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Ashish Agrawal along with Sri Ratnesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:- (i) Issue a direction to respondent no. 1/Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Allahbaad to decide the pending Rent Control Appeal No. 30 of 2010 (Ajay Babu v. Smt. Bela Devi) on day to day hearing basis or within such time so granted by this Hon'ble Court. (ii) Issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iii) Award costs of petition throughout to the petitioners.
(3.) It is contended by Sri Agrawal that an application was filed by the landlady seeking release of the accommodation for settling her sons in business under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P.Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The application was allowed on 27.2.2010. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the respondent no. 2 has filed an appeal, which was numbered as Rent Control Appeal No. 30 of 2010 (Ajay Babu v. Smt. Bela Devi)). Sri Agarwal submits that appeal is pending for the last four years but the same has yet not been decided due to non-cooperation of the learned counsel for the appellant. He has also contended that in order to delay the proceeding of the appeal, an amendment application was filed, which was rejected on 6.2.2013 by the learned Additional District Judge, Allahabad. Against the aforesaid order, Writ-A No. 14651 of 2013 was filed, which too was dismissed by this Court on 14.3.2013, taking note of the fact that amendment was sought at the belated stage, after trial has commenced, only with a view to delay the disposal of the appeal. In the submissions of Sri Agarwal, in view of Rule 7 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction ) Rules, 1972, the appeal has to be decided within a period of six months. He has also placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1997 (3) U.P.L.B.E.C. 1677 Ayodhya Sahai v. District Judge and others, wherein a general mandamus has been issued to decide such appeal at the earliest possible time. The Court has also observed that normally the adjournment sought by the counsel should be refused except on rare and exceptional grounds as mentioned in Order XVII, Rule 1 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure.;