Judgment : R. H. Zaidi, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. PRESENT petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding IVth Addl. Distt. Judge, Varanasi, to decide the Rent Appeal No. 448 of 1993 Banarasi v. Lalji and others and Rent Appeal No. 449 of 1993, Ram Chandra\. Lalji and others, on merits within a short period. It appears a release application under Section 21 (l) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 30-10-93, challenging the validity of the said order, two appeals were filed before the District Judge, Varanasi and ultimately they came to the file of respondent No. 1. It was on 24-11-1993, following orders. were passed by the District Judge, Varanasi: "heard, put up on 14-12-93 for hearing, meanwhile, the operation of impugned order shall remain stayed, it is made clear that the parties counsel should come prepared on date fixed and no adjournment shall be allowed. " In spite of the aforesaid order, the appeals were not heard. Thereafter, petitioner has filed an application for expeditious hearing of the appeals on 16-7-96, but even then the said appeals were not heard. The petitioner has no option but to approach this Court. 3. FOR the disposal of the present petition, I do not consider it necessary to issue notices to the respondents No. 2 and 3. Notices on behalf of the respondent No. 1 have been accepted by the learned Standing Counsel. 4. AS stated above, it was on 24-11-93, the District Judge, Varanasi, himself directed for hearing and disposal of the appeals, but the same were not heard. From the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder, it is evident that the applications by the authorities constituted under the Act are to be decided in accordance with law as far as possible within two months from the date they are filed. 5. SUB-rule (7) of Rule 7 of the Rules framed under the Act, provides as under- "7 Appeal (Sections 10,18 and 22)- 1. . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . (7) As far as possible, a revision under Section 18 snail be decided within one month, an appeal or revision under Section 10 shall be decided within two months and an appeal under Section 22 snail be decided within six months from the date of its presentation." Thus, the intention of the legislature is clear that the applications, appeals and revisions filed under the Act are to be decided expeditiously inasmuch as by pas sage of time The said applications, appeals and revisions may become infructuous or the purpose of the said applications, appeals and revisions may be frustrated by intervening facts. therefore, in my opinion, There was no justification for the respondent No. 1 to keep the aforesaid two appeals pending for about three years. 6. I, therefore, direct respondent No. 1 to decide the aforesaid two appeals within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him, by means of s peaking order after following the procedure prescribed under law. With these observations and directions, this petition stands finally disposed. Petition disposed of.