- (1.) J. C. Gupta, J. Heard petitioners' Counsel. Sri. P. K. Jain appears for the caveator-respondents-landlord.
(2.) THIS is tenant's Writ Petition directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority rejecting petitioners application for setting aside the order of release made by the Prescribed Authority on the application moved by the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, on the ground that the petitioners had failed to make out any sufficient cause and he has been guilty of dilatory tactics in the past. I have carefully examined the record and in the backdrop of facts and circumstances appearing in the case, it is apparent that the petitioners were deliberately avoiding disposal of the case which was filed as early as in the year 1994, which under Rule 15 (3) was required to be decided within a period of two months from the date of presentation of the application. The trial Court on ap praisal of evidence has recorded a clear cut finding that the petitioners have not succeeded in making out a case for setting aside the order of release made in favour of the landlord, when there is a hue and cry everywhere that cases arc being disposed of in Courts with great delays and scrupulous litigants succeeded in getting the matter further delayed by first absent ing themselves deliberately and then get ting the cases restored, it is high time now that such activities should not be en couraged by lightly granting them relief simply on the saying that heavens are not going to fall, if another opportunity is given. THIS Court in its writ jurisdiction grants equitable relief only to those who come before this Court with clean hands. In the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, this Court is not inclined to make any interference in the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners requested that some reasonable time may be allowed to the petitioners to make their own arrange ment and to vacate the premises in ques tion. Sri P. K. Jain on the other hand op poses the said prayer stating that the landlord is in dire necessity of the property in question. Considering the facts and cir cumstances, the petitioners are allowed time upto31-3-1999, subject to each of the petitioners filing separate undertaking on affidavit before the Prescribed Authority within a period of three weeks from today to the effect that they shall hand over vacant possession of the property in ques tion to the landlord-respondents peaceful ly without inducting any third person therein on or before the aforesaid date, i. e. , 31-3-1999. In order to enable the petitioners to file the required undertak ing, the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed for a period of three weeks from today and if the undertaking aforesaid is filed, the operation of the im pugned order shall remain suspended upto 31-3-1999. In the event of no undertaking being filed, the order extending time for delivery of possession shall stand vacated automatically and it shall be open for the landlord to get the order of release ex ecuted forthwith according to law.
(3.) WITH the above concession given to the petitioners for delivery of possession of the property in question, this Writ Peti tion is dismissed in limine. A certified copy of this order shall be supplied to the petitioners 'counsel within three weeks on payment of usual charges. Petition dismissed. .;