AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 169 wordsSudhir Narain, J.—The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the prescribed authority, respondent No. 1, to decide the application filed by him under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act. No. 13 of 1972. The case has not been decided even after expiry of2years.He has filed a supplementary affidavit, indicating that various cases filed before respondent No. 1 under Section 21(1) (a) of the Act, subsequent to the filing of the petitioner''s application, have been decided. Rule 13(4) of the rules framed under the Act provides that every application, as for as possible, be decided within one month from the date of its presentation. There is no reason why the application filed by the landlordpetitioner should not be decided expeditiously.
In view of the decide aforesaid, the respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the said application within a period of 3 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of finally. Petition disposed of.