- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Coun sel for the petitioner.
(2.) PRESENT petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ, order or direc tion in the nature of mandamus command ing IVth Addl. Distt. Judge, Varanasi, to decide the Rent Appeal No. 448 of 1993 Banarasi v. Lalji and others and Rent Ap peal No. 449 of 1993, Ram Chandra \. Lalji and others, on merits within a short period. It appears a release application under Section 21 (l) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 30-10-93, challenging the validity of the said order, two appeals were filed before the District Judge, Varanasi and ultimately they came to the file of respondent No. 1. It was on 24-11-1993, following orders. were passed by the Dis trict Judge, Varanasi: "heard, put up on 14-12-93 for hearing, meanwhile, the operation of impugned order shall remain stayed, it is made clear that the parties counsel should come prepared on date fixed and no adjournment shall be allowed. " In spite of the aforesaid order, the appeals were not heard. Thereafter, petitioner has filed an application for ex peditious hearing of the appeals on 16-7-96, but even then the said appeals were not heard. The petitioner has no option but to approach this Court. For the disposal of the present petition, I do not consider it necessary to issue notices to the respondents No. 2 and 3. Notices on behalf of the respondent No. 1 have been accepted by the learned Stand ing Counsel.
(3.) AS stated above, it was on 24-11-93, the District Judge, Varanasi, himself directed for hearing and disposal of the appeals, but the same were not heard. From the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder, it is evident that the applications by the authorities con stituted under the Act are to be decided in accordance with law as far as possible within two months from the date they are filed.;