- (1.) S. Rafat Alam, J. In the instant writ petition, the short grievance of the petitioner is that her application for the release of the shop filed on 25-2-1995 under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Build ings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972, (for short the Act), has not been disposed of till date, although the rule provides that such applications are to be disposed of as far as possible, within a period of two months from the date of its filing. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a direction in the nature otmandamus direct ing the respondent No. 1 to dispose of the above application within a reasonable time fixed by this Court.
(2.) IN view of the order which is being passed, no notice is required to be given to the respondents No. 2 and 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Coun sel appearing for respondent No. 1. The petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Mr. M. K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that the Prescribed Authority is required to dispose of the application filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act within the time prescribed in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Let ting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, (for short the F. ules), unless there are sufficient reasons for the delay of the disposal. He further urged that where the Prescribed Authority has failed to comply with the aforesaid provisions in its spirit, this Court can issue mandamus directing the Prescribed Authority fixing the time limit for disposal of such application.
(3.) RELIANCE has been placed on a Single Judge judgment of this Court dated 5th April, 1993, rendered in the case of Dileep Kumar and others v. Prescribed Authority (Additional Civil Judge), Budaun and others, 1996 (2) ARC 471. From the facts disclosed in the peti tion, it appears that the petitioner is the landlady of the shop in question, which is under the tenancy of respondents No. 2 and 3. An application for release of the shop was filed on 25-2-1995 on the ground of per sonal necessity which was registered as U. P. U. B. Case No. 17 of 1995. Despite valid service of notice on respondents No. 2 and 3, they did not appear in the Court below and therefore, by order dated 10-4-1995, it was directed to proceed exparte. Thereafter, the respondents No. 2 and 3 appeared on 15th April, 1995 along with an application for recalling of the order to proceed exparte, which was allowed on 20-4-95. When the respondents again did not take any steps in the proceedings, the Court below by its order dated 25-7-1995, ordered to proceed ex pane. However, respondent No. 3 ap peared and sought time on different dates for filing written statement, but the same was not filed and ultimately, the Court below by order dated 1-12-1995, directed that if the written statement is not filed today by 4 P. M. on behalf of respondent No. 3, no further opportunity shall be given for the same. Again by order dated 15-12-1995, the Court below allowed time till 30-1- 1996 to file written statement by the opposite party. In the meanwhile, the sister of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 made an applica tion for her impalement in the proceeding which was also rejected on 9th July, 1996. In short, it appears that the proceeding was being adjourned or delayed on some or the other pretext at the instance of tenant/respondents with a view to linger the disposal of the case.;