- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) IT is rather shocking to note that the release application filed on the ground of bona fide need under section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), which according to the Rule 15 of the Rules, framed under the said Act requires to be decided within two months, is pending for last 10 years, still stamina of the tenant has not exhausted and he wants to further delay the decision of the release application pending before the Prescribed Authority/civil Judge (Junior Division), Karvi, District Chitrakoot (Rent Case No. 1 of 1998 ). After pendency of 7 years of the release application, some application for inspection was filed by the tenant, which was rightly rejected, by the prescribed authority on 16. 7. 2005. Against the said order neither revision nor appeal is maintainable before the District Judge still Civil Revision No. 30 of 2005 was filed, which was rightly rejected by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Chitrakoot on 8. 10. 2007. The said orders have been challenged through this writ petition.
(3.) I do not find any error in the impugned orders. The property in dispute is stated to be a shop. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is neither aware about rate of rent nor the position of payment of rent. Probably the tenant is awaiting for the time when the patience of the landlord exhausts and he approaches some anti-social element to get the shop vacated.;