ORDER Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner filed release application, registered as P.A. Case No. 9 of 1998 Rama Shankar v. Shiv Prasad and Ors. under Section 21 (1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for release of shop in the possession of tenant-respondents.
3. It appears from the order sheet of the case appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition that adjournments have been granted and dates have been fixed in the case on the grounds that advocates are on strike; Court is vacant; no time is left for the Court to deal with the matter; Presiding Officer is on leave; he is busy elsewhere and so on. Almost eight years have elapsed but the case has not been heard and decided. in the meantime, one of the parties has died and his heirs and legal representatives have been substituted.
4. Proceedings before the prescribed authority under Section 21 (1)(a) and (b) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are summary in nature. It appears that the prescribed authorities are proceeding in the rent control matters in the aforesaid proceedings as if they are deciding a regular suit. Adjournments are given on mere asking and in a routine manner. Normally no cost is imposed and if it is imposed, it is too low, i.e., Rs. 50.
5. Courts below should not ensure justice to only one party but they should ensure that Justice is done to both the parties. interest of both the parties has to be kept in mind. Grant of adjournment to a party for one reason or the other without a will to decide the cases, is deplorable. A perusal of order sheet, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, shows that the Courts below are not at all interested in deciding the case. If the prescribed authority does not give quick Justice to the parties before it, i.e., within four to six months of filing of the case, then they are exposed to severe punitive action.
6. Needless to say that High Court is already overburdened with cases. Lingering on with cases of summary nature, for one reason or the other, by the Courts below results in further litigation before this Court. Such attitude of prescribed authorities does not help reducing the burden of pendency of cases rather is a basis for further unwarranted litigation between the parties.
7. For the reasons stated above and on the facts and in the circumstances of the instant case, respondent No. 1 is directed to positively decide the matter within three months from today. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.