RAKESH SHARMA, J. Heard learned Counsel for the paicies. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 17-5-2000 passed by the Prescribed Authority under U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the order dated 12-4-2001 passed by the appellate authority. 3. The landlord has submitted an application for release of the premises on the ground of bona fide need in the year 1999. During the pendency of the release application, the interim order was passed. 4. The petitioner has challenged the order mainly on the ground that provisions Order (sic) Rule 9, CPC are not applicable in the proceedings under U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, as such the learned Courts below have no jurisdic tion to allow the application filed by the contesting landlord. 5. As per the judgments reported in the cases of Kishan Dass v. PA. Pilibhit, 1980 ARC 369 (DB), Subhash Chandra Saxena v. Prescribed Authority, 1981 ARC 247 (DB), Kapoor Chandra v. The A. D. J. , Agra, 1982 (1) ARC 645 and Ram Narain Sharma v. Vllth Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar & Ors. , 1997 (1) ARC 348, held that Section 34 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, read with Rule 22 of the Rules, 1972, read with Section 151 of the CPC, the Prescribed Authority has the jurisdiction to pass any order to secure the ends of justice and the prin ciple underlying the specific provisions of CPC are applicable in the proceed ings under the Rent Control Act. 6. This matter is already pending disposal before the Prescribed Authority for release of the premises. The petitioner has caused unnecessary delay in disposal of the said application. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. The Prescribed Authority ap pointed under the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 at Hardoi, is directed to dispose of the P. A. Case No. 4 of 1999 between the Laxmi Prakash Gupta and Ashok Kumar Gupta, within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner may make a submission before the Prescribed Authority and contest the case. .