MAHMOOD ALAM Vs. KAMTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) If a party is frequently taking dates after dates to delay dispensation of justice there has to be a limit to such tactics adopted by a party. The Courts are not expected to be a party to such tactics by readily giving adjournments in cases just for the asking. The J.S.C.C. suits are required to be decided within six months as provided in the Small Causes Courts Act 1887 and within three months by the Prescribed Authority appointed under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972). Frequent dates should not be given. The Courts have a responsibility to decide the case within the time which has been fixed by the legislation in its wisdom and they have to strive to decide the cases in the time limit so fixed. If they do not do so, it sets a bad precedent opening the Pandora's box for public criticism. Delay erodes the faith of the public in justice of system, hence care should be taken in this regard by the Courts.

(3.) This Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31642 of 2007 Smt. Manju Devi v. Additional District Judge, VIII Allahabad and others, 2007 68 AllLR 761, has held that the cases pertaining to Rent Control matters be decided within six months time frame provided in various sections and rules under which applications are filed.