- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Coun sel for the petitioners.
(2.) PRESENT petition has been filed chal lenging the validity of the order dt 8-7-1996 whereby the application filed by the petitioners for framing and deciding issue on the question of relationship between La ndlord and tenant as preliminary issue, has been rejected by the Prescribed Authority. It appears that the contesting respondent filed application under Sec. 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act, No. XIII of 1972. In the said proceedings application paper No. 28-C was filed by the petitioners praying that an issue on the question of relationship of the landlord and tenant be framed and decided as preliminary issues. The prescribed Authority rejected the said application saying that all issues/questions involved in the case shall be decided together after evidence is completed by the parties and dismissed the application by means of im pugned order dated 8-7-1996. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that there ex isted no relationship of Landlord and tenant between the parties and the release application was legally not maintainable. The Prescribed Authority acted illegally in rejecting the said application. It was also urged that the Prescribed Authority was not willing to decide the question of relation ship of Landlord and tenant Between the par ties.
(3.) THE proceedings under the Act, as it is evident from various provisions con tained in the Act and the rules framed there under, are to be decided expeditiously. If various issues of law or fact are taken up separately and are decided by the Prescribed Authority separately, that will give handle to the party who is interested in delaying the disposal of the proceeding/case by challeng ing the validity of the said orders, before the revisional/appellate authorities constituted under the Act, before this Court, or even before the Supreme Court. By deciding the issues/questions involved in the case in piece meal, in that event the object of the Act, shall be frustrated. Reference may be made to the provisions, contained in sub-rule (7) of Rule 7, sub-rule (4) of Rule 13, and sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 of the Rules, which reads as under: "7 (7 ). As far as possible, a revision under Section 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. 13 (4 ). Every application under this rule shall, as far as possible, be decided within one month from the date of its presentation, and no allotment in respect of a building covered by an application under this rule shall be made unless such ap plication has been rejected. 15 (3 ). Every ap plication referred to in sub-rule (1) shall, as far as possible, be decided within two months from the date of its presentation. ";