- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against order dated 1. 8. 2007 passed by Prescribed Authority/civil Judge (S. D. , Kanpur Nagar in Rent Case No. 29 of 2002, Mukesh and others v. Smt. Rama Devi and others, through the said order tenants-petitioners' application for inspection through Advocate Commissioner was rejected. In the last part of the order it was directed that earlier amendment application filed by the tenant on 19. 9. 2006 under Order VI, Rule 17, C. P. C. should be put up for orders on 3. 9. 2007. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has granted that petitioners' amendment application dated 19. 9. 2006 copy of which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition had already been allowed on 8. 2. 2007. Copy of the said order is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. If amendment application had already been allowed then there was no question of directing rehearing of the said application. Accordingly, earlier part of the impugned order through which application for appointing Advocate Commissioner has been rejected is approved. However, latter part through which amendment application has been directed to be reheard is set aside. However, it is disturbing to note that an application under section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is pending for 5 years. Matter arises from Kanpur Nagar which is the most expensive city of Uttar Pradesh. Learned Counsel for the tenant is not even aware about the rent. Some times the Court finds that the tenants consider the rent to be most redundant thing. However, it appears that rent is quite negligible hence tenant is interested in delaying the matter.
(3.) PRESCRIBE authority is directed to decide the release application within two months from the date on which a copy of this order is filed before the prescribed authority. If any adjournment is granted to the petitioners, it must be on very heavy cost. This writ petition is being disposed of without issuing notice to the landlords-respondents. In case landlords-respondents feel aggrieved by this order then they are at liberty to apply for recall of this order.;